Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

RIVER HUMBER (BURCOM OUTFALL) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified—

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Restart Scheme

Mr. Wallace: asked the Paymaster General why the Manpower Services Commission does not conduct follow-up exercises after six months to ascertain what progress has been made for those involved in the restart scheme.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): My present priority is to devote all the resources allocated to the restart programme to the task of helping long-term unemployed people by providing them with a range of opportunities designed to get them back into employment.
By April next year we shall have interviewed the stock of people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. We expect to begin a cohort survey designed to plot the progress of a number of long-term unemployed people in the year following their restart interview in spring 1987.

Mr. Wallace: The Paymaster General recently claimed that as a result of restart just under one in five people had come off the register of long-term unemployed people. Does he realise that some of us are somewhat sceptical about his claims of success, as in the equivalent period last year even more people came off that register? Why is the Minister unwilling to canvass 100 per cent., as happened in the follow-up to the youth training scheme? Is he afraid of the results of such canvassing?

Mr. Clarke: I did not make a claim in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has said. It is true that rather over one in five of those interviewed by the Manpower Services Commission, as part of the programme, ceased to claim

benefit and left the unemployment count. However, I have always accepted that some of them would leave anyway. That is why we cannot, at this stage, estimate precisely how many of those whom we have sought to help do obtain jobs, training and so on. However, there is no doubt that the programme is having a beneficial effect. When we have accomplished the main job in hand, which is offering help to the long-term unemployed, we shall try a cohort survey so that we can answer some of the questions that people have raised.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend condemn the utterly disgraceful, if rather predictable, behaviour of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who on 4 December tried to mislead the British public over the restart programme by suggesting that Ministers said one thing when he knew full well that they had said another?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I get used to the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) tends to make up his criticisms as he goes along, but I become alarmed when he speaks on behalf of the Labour party and appears to make its policy, too, as he goes along.

Mr. Leighton: Is not a miasma of confusion caused by the three ways in which Ministers present the figures? First, they talk about a positive offer being made involving about 90 per cent. of the unemployed. However, that is meaningless as it does not necessarily lead to anything. Secondly, they sometimes talk about the number of claimants directly placed, when in reality fewer than 1 per cent. actually get jobs. Thirdly, Ministers talk about the number of those ceasing to claim benefit being about 18 per cent. However, as has been pointed out, in the past five quarters, about 18 per cent. have come off the register in the normal way. Does all that not show that restart is hardly having any real effect? Is not the lesson to be drawn that there is a shortage of jobs for those going through restart?

Mr. Clarke: We tend to give answers in each of those terms when the questions are put in those terms. It is not the Government, but those attempting to criticise and debunk the scheme, who muddle up the figures and try to reach the unjustifiable conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has reached. I thought that I saw him reported the other day as saying that he supports the restart programme. In that case, I trust that he will start giving it credit for the fact that it offers positive help to each and every one of those who have been out of work for more than 12 months.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this scheme should be welcomed on both sides of the House because it offers real hope for the long-term unemployed, many of whom find jobs as a result of it? In addition, they have a point of contact after the scheme in the job club, which can continue to give them help. As the scheme develops, will my right hon. and learned Friend examine ways in which proper training development can be tacked on to the scheme for those who would benefit from extra training and get a job?

Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend. This is obviously an exciting innovation in helping the long-term unemployed, and it is having considerable success. It is a pity that the Opposition are so devoid of ideas that they


try only to debunk it. One of the things towards which we try to steer the long-term unemployed is a training opportunity, if that is what they require to get back into the job market. We are now moving on from restart, and the latest thing that we are trying out is the job training scheme, whereby we hope to be able to offer training places to every person under the age of 25 who is unemployed for more than six months in the areas where we are operating the scheme.

Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Forth: Get it right this time.

Mr. Prescott: I am addressing a rabble.
Does the Paymaster General accept the reply given by the Under-Secretary on 6 November, saying that only 1 per cent. of the people interviewed had been placed in proper jobs? Does he also accept the protest from his Department's officers that the timetable that he has settled for the restart interviews makes it impossible to carry out effective counselling? Will he be honest with the House and admit that the restart programme is nothing more than another fiddle and a squalid attempt by the Government to frighten people legitimately entitled to benefit off the register?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend and I keep pointing out that the figures given in the reply to those questions apply to those directly placed from the interviews into employment. They are not a measure, as the hon. Gentleman keeps trying to claim, of the number of people who go into work from restart. The hon. Gentleman is deliberately misusing the figure, and he ignores the repeated explanations of what it amounts to.
As to the protest by staff, I assume that he is backing up the protest of one of the trade unions, which was trying to argue that we should have more staff on the scheme. We have already employed 2,000 extra staff, and I have no doubt that the unions will try to claim that more are needed.
The hon. Gentleman makes allegations about fiddles, but it is absurd for the Opposition to attack as a fiddle every measure that gets the unemployed back to work. I have no doubt that he is behind the latest edition of Labour's newspaper, the Labour Weekly, which sets out its list of eight fiddles, which includes projects such as the enterprise allowance scheme, which puts people into self-employment. I make it clear once and for all that to put somebody into a job and into training is not a fiddle. It merely disappoints the Opposition, who are upset that unemployment is going down.

Work Test

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the progress made in the application of the new availability-for-work test.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The procedural changes that I announced to the House on 28 October are being introduced progressively. Around two thirds of unemployment benefit offices are now operating them. The aim is to have them operating in all offices by the end of January.
The procedures are designed to meet criticism from the Public Accounts Committee of shortcomings in testing the long-standing requirement that benefit should be paid only to unemployed claimants who are available for work.

Mr. Hamilton: Despite the Minister's protestations, does he not accept that there is now a widely held view that the sole purpose of this disreputable exercise is to cut the unemployment figures without tackling the problem? Does he accept that if the results of the pilot schemes were projected nationally 25,000 or so would be removed from the register each month, without a single new job resulting? Is not his message to the unemployed, "If we cannot get you a job, we shall stop counting you"?

Mr. Clarke: It is merely a new method of ensuring that benefit is paid only to people who are entitled to it. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that what he described is a widely held view. It is held by a few activists in the Labour movement and those associated with it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread support in my constituency for the new availability-for-work scheme? In Bracknell, we allegedly have more than 7 per cent. unemployment and 500 vacancies at the jobcentre.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If we did not ask questions of people who claim benefit, we should be handing out benefit simply on request. That seems suddenly to have become the policy of the Labour and Liberal parties, but I do not think that they have widespread public support for it.

Mr. James Lamond: Is it sensible to suggest to an unemployed family man in the north-west of England that he should move to the south-east to find a job, where he may discover that he requires a mortgage that is three times the size of the one that he has in the north-west, with the result that his wage will not cover the increased mortgage payments and he will be worse off by moving than by staying at home on the dole?

Mr. Clarke: That does not sound very sensible to me. As far as I am aware, nobody has had that suggested to them as part of the availability for work test. All we are applying is the usual rule that people have to be reasonably available for work that is likely to be available in the area in which they live.

Mr. Marlow: As, according to the Library, in two constituencies in booming London—Vauxhall and Bermondsey—30 per cent. of males are unemployed and drawing benefit, this seems to be massive evidence of fiddle, fraud and idleness. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the availability-for-work test is reinforced in those areas? Currently, the taxpayer is being deprived of £40 million in two constituencies alone.

Mr. Clarke: There has always been a test of availability, because there has always been an availability rule. We have introduced a form which seeks to ensure, as my hon. Friend and many others would wish, that benefit is paid only to those who qualify for it. In London there are many job vacancies and many opportunities to get back into the job market. We are introducing the restart scheme to steer back into work people who want it, but when we do that we find that we are criticised by the Opposition as well.

Mr. Evans: Will the Paymaster General now acknowledge that the major purpose of this cynical scheme it to reduce the unemployment figures prior to the next general election, without creating one extra job? Will he confirm that many of the questions in the questionnaire have been devised to trap or trick the unemployed into losing their benefit?

Mr. Clarke: I am weary of hearing the old trick-question line, because nobody has ever cited a trick question to me. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to confirm that the Labour party's policy is to give out benefit to anybody who wants it without asking any questions and that, if people claim benefit for more than 12 months, we should do absolutely nothing to offer them help to get into employment.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that anybody who enjoys unemployment benefit—

Mr. Evans: Enjoys it?

Sir William Clark: —is enjoying it at the expense of the taxpayer? Is it not completely unfair that taxpayers' money should be used when the person who receives it is not available for work?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend and others agree that the average taxpayer is perfectly content to pay unemployment benefit to somebody who is out of work, looking for it and cannot find it. The average taxpayer would, however, be amazed to hear the Opposition demanding that we should hand out benefit to anybody and that somehow it is harassment to ask people to demonstrate that they are looking for work and are therefore entitled to benefit. As the Labour party passed the law that we are enforcing, it is high time that it made it clear that it proposes to repeal that law, so that anybody can have benefit when the Labour party gets back into power.

Enterprise Allowance Scheme

Dr. Marek: asked the Paymaster General what is the Government's best estimate of the displacement and substitution effect of the enterprise allowance scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): It is difficult to obtain reliable information on the displacement and substitution effects of the enterprise allowance scheme. The limited evidence available suggests that displacement and substitution may possibly be about 50 per cent. Given the large degree of uncertainty, I am not satisfied with that figure and have asked the Manpower Services Commission to commission research into the methodology of measuring displacement.

Dr. Marek: When will the Minister realise that he cannot have a flourishing private enterprise scheme in a massively deflated economy? Does he agree, in line with recent studies, that the present enterprise allowance scheme lends support to the black economy? If so, what will he do about it?

Mr. Trippier: The scheme does not lend support to the black economy. The substantive question on the Order Paper refers to substitution and displacement, and the scheme will displace many people who are already in the black economy. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that as much as I do. All the evidence shows that we have the highest number of self-employed that we have seen for the past 60 years, and that has been achieved principally under this Government.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that follow-up research suggests that three out of five of

those on the enterprise allowance scheme are still in work three years later, bringing with them more jobs? Is he aware that many people in my constituency have benefited from this scheme and that they greatly appreciated it as a bridge from reliance on benefit to self-sufficiency in self-employed posts?

Mr. Trippier: The scheme is a particular success in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is important to stress that the figures show that for every 100 successful businesses under the scheme, 99 additional jobs have been created. The survey which has been conducted thus far will merely be a chapter in a long-running novel and will show that in future many more jobs will be created by people who have been set up under the scheme.

Jobstart

Mr. Boyes: asked the Paymaster General how many long-term unemployed people are in receipt of the jobstart allowance.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): By 5 December, 2,074 people were in receipt of the jobstart allowance.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister not ashamed to be part of a Department which is creating a scheme to force people to take jobs at less than £80 a week? In other words, he is forcing them to work on poverty level wages. Although the average wage is £65, his Department has produced figures showing that a large number of people are earning less than £39. What does he expect those people to do after six months when their £20 supplement is ended? Does he expect them to carry on working for £39 and less? Is this not another device to reduce unemployment figures and another example of the Government's disgraceful, unacceptable attitude towards unemployed people?

Mr. Lee: Conservative Members and, increasingly, unemployed people are becoming fed up with the sneering, destructive comments of the Opposition about many of our constructive positive schemes, such as this one. It is constructive and positive and we sincerely hope that at the end of six months employees will stay on with their employers. The MSC hopes to conduct a survey in 1987 of those who participated in the national jobstart scheme.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that any job-encouraging initiative which the Government take is sneered at by the Opposition as a fiddle? Will he remind Opposition Members that their party introduced the youth opportunity programme in 1977, which gave youths a wage of only £18 a week, including travel allowance? Will he also remind them that the Labour manifesto of 1979 said:
We have the Youth Opportunities Programme, which guarantees every school-leaver either a job or a training place or employment experience".
In addition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—in 1976 the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who was then Employment Secretary, took full-time students out of the unemployment register, saying that that would reduce the unemployment figures by a considerable amount.

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition increasingly talk with forked tongues.

Mr. Wainwright: In view of the minimal response to the jobstart allowance during the past five months, why does


the Minister not replace it with a cash incentive to employers to expand the number of staff by recruiting from the long-term unemployed?

Mr. Lee: We have a whole range of other schemes. I acknowledge that there has been a slow start to this scheme, but, as a result of the fairly recent television campaign, there has been a significant pick up.

Wages Councils

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Paymaster General what increase in employment he estimates to have followed from the recent reform of wages councils.

Mr. Trippier: Attempts to estimate the employment effects of these particular reforms are not likely to be fruitful. However, the streamlining of the system and the removal of statutory minima which prevent employers offering jobs to young people at realistic rates can only increase employment beyond what it would otherwise have been.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In view of my hon. Friend's reply, will he calculate the opposite effect on employment of introducing a statutory minimum wage? While he is doing that, can he add to that the effects on employment of shutting down American bases, phasing out nuclear power stations and imposing mandatory sanctions against South Africa? Does he agree that if the Labour party came to office such policies would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Quite apart from the disastrous effects that the Labour party's proposals would have on the levels of unemployment which my hon. Friend has catalogued, the substantial increase in taxation necessary to fund the Labour party's increase of £28 billion of public expenditure would dramatically exacerbate the position that my hon. Friend has described.

Engineering Skills

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Paymaster General what measures he considers necessary to increase the volume and quality of training in engineering skills.

Mr. George Howarth: asked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied with the volume of craft and technician training in the engineering industry.

Mr. Trippier: It is the responsibility of employers to identify their own engineering skill requirements and ensure an appropriate volume and quality of training at all levels, but the Government are providing substantial help through their £1·5 billion training programmes for young people and adults.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister realise that a recent report from the Engineering Industry Training Board says that in the past eight years training has declined by 30 per cent. in the industry, and over the past 15 years by 50 per cent.? Is he aware that there is a crisis in engineering training at the entry and the adult training and retraining levels? That crisis will stop this country from moving again when the Labour party takes office. Is it not about time that he did something to prepare the ground for that?

Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to prepare the ground for the inopportune and unlikely event of a

Labour Government being elected, he is not going about it in the right way. He cannot have it both ways. The engineering industry comes under the responsibility of a statutory training board, the like of which he wishes to replicate throughout the rest of industry and commerce. The views that are expressed by the Engineering Industry Training Board, which I very much welcome, must, under that statutory training system, be welcomed, otherwise the hon. Gentleman is claiming that the statutory training system which already imposes a levy does not work. There are many people inside and outside the House who believe that that is the truth.

Mr. Lawler: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the training crisis in the engineering industry is the high wage rates that have been negotiated by trade unions for young people entering the industry by? Does he accept that the best way to increase the volume of training is for the engineering industry to adapt the traditional apprenticeship schemes and integrate them with YTS? Will my hon. Friend congratulate those far-sighted engineering companies which have already done that?

Mr. Trippier: I certainly congratulate those companies which have adopted that practice. My hon. Friend has made a valid point. Apprenticeship is not the only route to craft and technician jobs. YTS has already enabled a substantial amount of initial skills training to be carried out. The expanded two-year scheme will enable even more people to be trained in that way.

Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister agree that it is appalling that the CBI has claimed that there is a shortage of skilled workers when at the same time it is exploiting the YTS as cheap labour and completely failing to promote real apprenticeships? Is it not the country that is suffering overall?

Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman was correct it would mean that the 83 per cent. of people who have benefited under YTS, who have said that they are satisfied with the training that they have received under that programme, are completely wrong. First of all the hon. Gentleman insults those—

Mr. Brown: Forget the statistics. The Minister should come up to Scotland and meet the young people, and then he would know better.

Mr. Trippier: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he asked his question. I would be grateful if he would try to listen to my reply.
First, the allowance made is an allowance, and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) is absolutely right. It is appropriate that a lower differential should be established so that those who are not fully skilled can try to attain a qualification that would try to put right the skill shortage that we know about.

Mr. Batiste: Would my hon. Friend be able to estimate how much more successful the training and other employment measures of the Government would be if the Government were not constantly faced with carping and politically motivated criticism from the Opposition, whose sole purpose is to undermine their success for electoral purposes?

Mr. Trippier: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the first place, every time an Opposition Member seeks to rubbish


the youth training scheme it is an insult to those young people who have enjoyed that form of training. I believe, as do my colleagues on the Front Bench, that every opportunity is taken by the Opposition to knock every scheme. That leads us to understand that they do not want the unemployment figures to come down prior to the general election, and that they are not sincere in wanting to reduce the unacceptable level of unemployment.

Community Programme

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Paymaster General why he has changed the community programme eligibility rules for 18 to 25-year-olds in the nine pilot areas chosen for the job training scheme.

Mr. Lee: The job training scheme pilots offer training and work experience, particularly for those aged under 25 who have been unemployed for six months or more. We therefore decided that in the pilot areas places on the community programme should be concentrated on those who have been out of work for 12 months or more.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister accept that what young adults want, like everyone else, is real jobs? However, at least the community programme has ensured that many of them can do something useful and in many cases they can get training while on the schemes. Does the Minister also agree that it is unfair of the Government to stop young people in the trial areas from continuing on the community programme unless they have been out of work for more than 12 months? Will he accept that the Government are again penalising those young people who desperately want jobs and forcing them to go on a training scheme, when many of them have been on the youth opportunities programme and youth training scheme and have had their fill of training? They want jobs from the Government.

Mr. Lee: The whole point of the job training scheme is to improve the quality of training of our young people, and I wish that Opposition Members, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in particular, would support us in that. The aim of the scheme, with regard to particular individuals, is to place emphasis on an agreed training plan, and particularly to concentrate on new technological skills and self-employment.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend share my amazement at the fact that the Opposition do not welcome the pilot schemes, which are designed positively to improve training for 18 to 25-year-olds, especially if that can leave more room for older people to take advantage of places on the community programme?

Mr. Lee: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We are trying all the time to improve the quality of our training schemes and training for our young people.

Ms. Clare Short: Has the Minister seen the MSC's recent report on the attitude of the long-term unemployed to the new job training scheme? Is he aware that it was, in the words of the report, "cynical and suspicious" and saw the reduction of the unemployment figures as the main benefit? It also described the scheme as "tantamount to slave labour." How can the Minister possibly justify paying participants their benefit only, removing them from the unemployment figures and then charging employers a fee for their labour? Is that not the most

cynical and nasty of all the schemes that have been introduced, simply to reduce the unemployment figures in the run-up to the election?

Mr. Lee: I totally reject the hon. Lady's comments. We are trying to improve the quality of training all the time. I believe that the scheme is proving popular in the pilot areas, but we must await the results of the scheme before we can consider whether to extend it further.

Small Firms Service

Mr. Richard Page: asked the Paymaster General how he plans to strengthen the links between the small firms service and local enterprise agencies.

Mr. Trippier: There is considerable and growing contact between the small firms service and local enterprise agencies. Small firms service counselling now takes place in over 30 local enterprise agency offices and all English LEAs now have details of SFS counsellors in their region. The LEAs make extensive use of SFS publications. SFS managers and LEA directors meet regularly. I am encouraging the development of these contacts.

Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for that progressive reply. I know that he is aware of the excellent work that is carried out by the local enterprise agencies in advising businesses and creating new jobs. May I ask him to take it one stage further by linking up, through the small firms service, to the BOTB to give pro-active advice to small businesses on exporting, because it is on exporting that the future success of this country depends?

Mr. Trippier: I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion. Apart from their hand-holding task, local enterprise agencies clearly adopt a pro-active stance within the communities in which they operate. They are in a strong position to advise people on exporting. As long as my hon. Friend's proposals fit in with what the BOTB would like, there should be no difficulty about implementing them. They could represent a good advance for the local enterprise agency movement.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister accept that there is a need for much greater co-ordination of the services provided to small businesses? Are not small businesses sometimes confused by all the advice that is given to them by local authorities, educational institutions, chambers of commerce, enterprise agencies, the Government and other sources? Will the Minister do something to try to achieve better co-ordination of these services?

Mr. Trippier: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept my view that local enterprise agencies should be the one-stop shop, providing not only the hand-holding service but the signposting service that is so necessary. They are in a very good position to have strong links with further education colleges, with the small firms service to which I have already referred, and with any available training organisation. I know that the hon. Gentleman supports the local enterprise agency movement, and I welcome his support. Both he and I must try to ensure that every person in the land knows that the local enterprise agency should be the one-stop shop and the first port of call.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Norwich the links between the small firms service and


the local enterprise agency have been working well? Obviously, however, it must be good to increase the links. I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he has recently given to the Norwich enterprise agency trust. Does he agree that we must use every possible means to encourage more young people to set up in business, thereby increasing employment?

Mr. Trippier: On my hon. Friend's latter point, I was privileged to visit officially the local enterprise agency in Norwich and I was most impressed by what I saw. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that the connection between the local enterprise agency and the small firms service seems to work perfectly well in that part of the country.

Restart Scheme

Mr. Terry Lewis: asked the Paymaster General how many people have so far participated in restart courses; how long they last; and how many have got permanent jobs as a result.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: By 13 November, 46,415 people had been on the one-week restart course under the national restart programme. We have no means of knowing exactly how many participants subsequently obtain permanent employment.

Mr. Lewis: According to an answer in Hansard on 6 November, only 0·7 per cent. of those interviewed had been placed in jobs. Is this not an indictment of the Paymaster General's policy, particularly as proper jobs in the real world are needed into which people can be slotted, instead of the palliatives that he has presented to the House?

Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer that I gave he would have been given part of the explanation as to why the figure upon which he relies is completely meaningless. Among the many people who have to be added to the 0·7 per cent. are those who obtain jobs after they have been on a restart course. They are not included in the figure that the hon. Gentleman cited. My hon. Friends and I have repeatedly said that it is pathetic that the Opposition should be reduced at Employment Question Time to nitpicking about all these schemes and trying to find opportunities to denigrate them instead of realising that they represent a positive programme of help for the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a number of people in my constituency have been on the restart scheme and that they have then obtained jobs? Even one of those who have not obtained jobs came to my constituency advice centre the other day and told me that, although he had not yet found a new job, he felt that he was now very much better qualified to get one. I am sure that that applies throughout the country.

Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend says, individuals are placed directly in a job or in training, or they become self-employed, with a subsidy under the enterprise allowance scheme, or they attend a restart course and then try to enter the labour market. One in five of all those who contact stop claiming benefit and cease to be unemployed. A good proportion of these people are returning to the labour market. It is absurd to go through the statistics in

minute detail in an effort to knock down this extremely ambitious programme, which aims to give that kind of help.

Training Initiative

Mr. Terry Davis: asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the progress of the new training initiative.

Mr. Trippier: The new job training scheme pilots are now in operation in nine areas around the country. There has been an enthusiastic response from training providers, and unemployed people are coming forward in significant numbers.

Mr. Davis: But does the Minister agree that there is less adult training now than when the new initiative began? Is that what the Minister calls success?

Mr. Trippier: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had prepared his supplementary question prior to hearing the substantive reply that I have just given, because I referred to a scheme that is being piloted in nine new areas. Substantial numbers of people are coming forward as a result of this new initiative and we are very pleased with it.

Mr. Dorrell: Will my hon. Friend speculate on the likely effect on companies' training efforts if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) were ever successful in securing the endorsement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for a 1 per cent. training levy to raid company coffers and reduce companies' own resources to fund their training efforts?

Mr. Trippier: I query whether the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) would get the endorsement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Certainly it has been calculated by the Department of Employment, where I work, that the percentage levy that a future Labour Government would impose on industry and commerce would mean a substantial increase in the corporation tax rate, which would cripple them.

Ms. Richardson: Does the Minister accept that the proposed closure on Friday of this week of the women into manual skills course at Deptford skillcentre will be a disaster for women wanting to train in non-traditional skills? Is he aware that there is a lobby at this moment in the Central Lobby protesting about that? Will he give me an undertaking that if the meeting which has been arranged between the three funding boroughs and the Manpower Services Commission does not come up with a solution which allows the course to remain open he will personally intervene and show his commitment to training for women?

Mr. Trippier: I have already given my commitment to the training of women. I gave it to the hon. Lady at a meeting which she attended in my Department only last week. I was pleased to intervene on her behalf, asking the MSC to co-operate fully with the consultation exercise which is going on at the moment. I cannot give her the assurance that she seeks in the latter part of her question. The MSC in no way intended to reduce the training provision for women. It will simply be transferred.

Restart Scheme

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Paymaster General if he will indicate the rate of take-up of the restart scheme in the west midlands.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: By 13 November 60,520 people in the west midlands region had been interviewed under the restart programme.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will he say a word to the House about the Social Affairs Council in Brussels last week, the agreement which he achieved on the United Kingdom employment initiative and how his European colleagues reacted to that?

Mr. Clarke: They reacted very well. I am glad to say that 12 member states agreed on a programme which included a commitment to help the long-term unemployed, which is what we are doing through the restart programme. There is great international interest in this original programme. It is one of the best new ideas for helping the long-term unemployed that any country has come up with for a long time. If there had been any Labour participant, in the Social Affairs Council last week, the Council would have been astonished to hear the entire thing described as merely a fiddle.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister realise that with the collapse of industrial training in the west midlands, and the collapse of engineering training at every level by 30 per cent. since the Government took office, the people of the west midlands and elsewhere want a fresh start with a Labour Government, and not restart?

Mr. Clarke: Now that the economy is reviving so strongly and the amount of employment is increasing, restart is steering people back into opportunities in the west midlands and elsewhere. Instead of trying to find ways of describing the decline in the west midlands and referring to a few years back, the hon. Gentleman should take on board the fact that since August 1983 alone more than 20,000 new small businesses have been launched in the west midlands under the enterprise allowance scheme. That is only one part of the menu that we have on offer under our restart programme.

Self-employment

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Paymaster General what new initiatives he plans to move obstacles to self-employment.

Mr. Trippier: We have taken a substantial number of measures to encourage self-employment, including those outlined in the White Paper "Building Businesses … not Barriers". We continue to keep the possibility of further improvements in this area under active review.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of several difficulties which a number of self-employed people have been facing recently from the Inland Revenue because of the definition of self-employment which it has been imposing upon them, which has resulted in their having to return to employee status? Will he seek early discussions with his Treasury colleagues to produce a clearly defined criteria for self-employment so that everyone knows where he stands.

Mr. Trippier: The White Paper, "Building Businesses … not Barriers", dealt with the improved training of

those who were employed at local offices of the Inland Revenue and the DHSS. It is important, as my hon. Friend is suggesting, that decisions on employment status are fully understood and consistently applied. At present we are looking at ways to clarify and simplify further the procedures for assessing employment status.

PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Speaker: I remind both sides of the House that questions to the Prime Minister are in order only if they refer to her responsibilities.

Engagements

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Adley: As defence criteria will undoubtedly be paramount in the decision that my right hon. Friend and her Cabinet colleagues have to take on the airborne early warning system, does she agree that neither she nor the House needs advice from the party that cancelled the TSR2? Nevertheless, bearing in mind that it took the Royal Navy eight years to order the Harrier after the United States Marine corps had done so, will my right hon. Friend please give an assurance that when the Cabinet has made its decision there will be a statement and a debate in the House so that those of us who still have nagging doubts may be convinced?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that defence requirements must be paramount in the decision and we must be certain that the system which is chosen will meet the country's defence requirements fully and within an acceptable time scale. There will be a statement to the House when the Government have reached their decision. The question of a debate is a matter to be settled through the normal channels.

Mr. Kinnock: It is obvious that on both sides of the House, and, indeed, on all sides of the argument, the strong demand is that our country gets as a vital part of our national defence an airborne — [Laughter.] Conservative Members might think that it is funny; the rest of the country certainly does not. We need an airborne early warning system that is totally dependable at a cost and in a time that is necessary for national priorities. However, will the Prime Minister accept that it is necessary to show that, in coming to a decision, full account is taken of the current quality of the British GEC system and of the national technological interest—an aspect which, understandably, the RAF officers making the assessment did not have to address directly. Therefore, before the Cabinet meets on Thursday, will the right hon. Lady set up a speedy and independent inquiry to establish — [Interruption.]—beyond all possible doubt the relative technological, financial, delivery, and, above all, defence merits of the GEC AEW and the Boeing AWAC systems?

The Prime Minister: I made it perfectly clear that defence requirements must be paramount in this decision. May I also make it clear that an independent inquiry is


neither necessary nor appropriate to enable the customer to decide how best to meet its vital need to have an effective airborne early warning system in operational service as soon as possible.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Lady's refusal to have an inquiry based on the conviction that the GEC system is somehow so inferior as not to warrant further consideration? If it is, why was GEC given the status of a prime contractor as recently as March? Why was its system nominated just 12 weeks ago to go forward for the final adjudication? Why, in the process of assessment, was no early warning given of these alleged deficiencies, and why as recently as 5 December was the Secretary of State for Defence able to say that both systems work?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman appears to have come to his own conclusion. I make it quite clear that in coming to a decision defence requirements must be paramount. They will not be subordinated to any political expediency. We must be certain that the system which is chosen meets our defence requirements fully and within an acceptable time scale. Those will be the criteria. I repeat that an independent inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate to enable the customer, the Ministry of Defence and the RAF, to decide how best to meet the RAF's vital need to have an effective system in operational service as soon as possible.

Mr. Kinnock: If those are all the criteria, as they rightly should be, with defence requirements heading them, what is the reservation about having an independent inquiry to demonstrate beyond peradventure the advantages of one system over the other?

The Prime Minister: The opinion of those who are responsible for the defence of our country is the best opinion and it should not be subordinated or submitted to independent assessors who do not carry that responsibility.

Mr. Prior: May I declare an all too-well-known interest? I say to my right hon. Friend that of course the defence of the country must come first in any decision that the Government reach.

An Hon. Member: But—

Mr. Prior: Not even a but.
The leaks that have come out of the Ministry of Defence are unfortunate, because they have given an impression that the GEC avionics system simply does not work, and could not be made to work within three years of the stipulated date. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is damaging for a company which has worked very hard from the time that it had complete control of the contract? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend and the Government consider allowing GEC, together with the Ministry of Defence, to look at the assessment to see what is wrong and whether the scientists can agree a way forward?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he recognises that the defence interest must be paramount. It would be difficult to let one company or another see certain information which might be commercially confidential. Both companies would have a complaint if we were to let the other see that information. May I make it quite clear that the MOD has great confidence in GEC, as is instanced by the amount of

purchases that the Ministry of Defence makes from that company. Those purchases reached about £800 million last year.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Head of Defence Procurement, Mr. Levene, yesterday told the Public Accounts Committee that the cost overruns on Nimrod were to a large extent caused by problems within the Ministry of Defence? In view of that, will the right hon. Lady assure the House that if the Cabinet decides on defence grounds to go for AWACS and to abandon the Nimrod project there will be a full explanation about what happened to the £900 million of taxpayers' money which has been spent since 1977? In the meantime, will she instruct her unattributable sources in Whitehall to cease their character assassination of GEC?

The Prime Minister: They have already done that by indicating the amount which the Ministry of Defence purchases annually from the General Electric Company, which it would not do unless it had confidence in GEC's ability to produce those things. When it comes to the early warning system, defence needs must be paramount. Those responsible for the defence of this country must be certain that they have a fully effective system that will work within the appropriate time scale. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that those best able to make that judgment are those who are responsible for the system. I hope he will agree that we should trust their integrity in coming to their judgment.

Mr. Heseltine: May I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that in what is an agonisingly difficult decision for the Government there is nothing that is new about the awareness of the difficulties of bringing the British version of the airborne early warning system to a satisfactory conclusion, but that in the last resort it is only the Ministry of Defence and the advisers within the Ministry that can take a decision of this sort? With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), it would not be possible for an independent inquiry to impose a decision upon the Ministry of Defence.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming what I said earlier.

Mr. Home Robertson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments go.

Mr. Home Robertson: Because the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) has made mistakes in the past, it does not necessarily mean that he is wrong about Nimrod. Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the need to protect Britain's high technology industry and the need to preserve Britain's independent defence capability within NATO? Why are we getting this thrawn refusal to have an independent inquiry into and assessment of this issue?

The Prime Minister: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has added to the question I have already been asked, and I do not think that I can add anything to the answers that have already been given.

Mr. Greg Knight: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest report of the Audit Commission concludes that local authorities could save nearly £2 billion a year through greater efficiency? Yet following the publication of that report, Derbyshire county council is still wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money on such unnecessary items as television advertising and publishing a civic newspaper. It has now decided, at public expense, to send a number of Socialist councillors on a television interview training course. Is not this—

Mr. Speaker: Quickly.

Mr. Knight: —a disgraceful abuse and yet another example of Labour's irresponsibility when in office? Is it not clear evidence that further Government action is necessary to stamp out this outrageous abuse?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Since the Audit Commission commenced operations in 1983 it has identified about £2 billion worth of economies that would give ratepayers very much better value for money. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal of scope for these economies to be made, often in the very authorities which are demanding more money, although they do not know how best to spend the money that they have already.

Mr. Allen Adams: I note with interest the Prime Minister's concern about defence. Is she aware that Babcock Power yesterday announced 620 redundancies at its Renfrew plant? This is a factory that is steeped in manufacturing parts for Trident, which is an integral part of the defence of the realm, apart from developing ultrasonic equipment and heavy lifting gear. [Interruption.] What does the Prime Minister intend to do about this, and when does she intend to do it?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I could not hear the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, except that I heard him say that there have been severe redundancies in a factory in his constituency. As he is aware, every possible effort will be made to help to create new jobs.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm the Government's unequivocal support for nuclear deterrence, which plays a crucial role in the defence of the West, in the light of the Soviet Union's overwhelming superiority in conventional forces? Does she agree that to scrap the nuclear deterrent and divert resources to conventional forces would be a paltry gesture that would not bridge the gap but would merely leave Britain isolated and exposed?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nuclear deterrence is a fundamental part of our defence strategy and a fundamental part of NATO's defence strategy. We shall continue to modernise our own independent nuclear deterrent with Trident. Money spent on nuclear weapons provides far more deterrence than the same amount spent on conventional forces.

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise directly out of questions?

Mr. Morris: It does, Mr. Speaker. I attended the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, when the Head of Defence Procurement, Mr. Levene, made a statement in answer to questions about Nimrod. He did not say that the majority of costs on overrun were the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. That is an incorrect statement of what he said in evidence.

Local Government Expenditure

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the calculation of expenditure for rate support grant purposes. Relevant and total expenditure are two key concepts that are basic to the local government finance system in England and Wales. Since 1981, relevant and total expenditure—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members clear the Chamber quietly if they do not intend to remain?

Mr. Ridley: Since 1981, relevant and total expenditure have been calculated on the basis of the expenditure charged to a local authority's rate fund revenue account. That expenditure includes contributions from that account to, for instance, the housing revenue account and other special funds. Contributions from such funds and accounts to rate fund revenue account have been regarded as income-reducing relevant and total expenditure. That approach was adopted in 1981, in response to the views of local authority associations.
I have looked closely at the definitions of relevant and total expenditure because of some anomalies in the returns of expenditure received from a number of authorities. I was concerned that the accepted approach, despite the local authority associations' desire for it, did not seem to correspond to the statute, and I sought legal advice about this. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ridley: That advice made it clear that the Department's treatment of expenditure was incorrect in law. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a highly complicated issue. I ask the House to give the Secretary of State a fair hearing.

Mr. Ridley: Transfers between funds and accounts within the rate fund are not expenditure. Expenditure takes place only when an authority has liabilities in the outside world and meets them from the general rate fund. A second opinion confirmed the advice.
I must accept that advice. It means that past decisions that involved the concepts of total or relevant expenditure are put in doubt, and that it would be quite improper for me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to ask the House to take further decisions on the present basis. Until this matter is put right, we therefore cannot make any further RSG reports, including the main report for 1987–88, or complete the rate limitation process.
To deal with this highly technical problem, the Government therefore will bring urgent legislation before Parliament which will validate for England and Wales all past decisions involving the use of relevant or total expenditure and allow decisions to be properly taken for the remainder the present rate support grant system, in line with the practice that has hitherto been adopted. Because the Bill is unlikly to receive the Royal Assent in time to allow for the normal timetable on rate limitation, I propose to include in it provisions to set rate and precept limits for designated authorities by formula. The Bill is designed to make no changes in policy, but as far as possible to apply existing policy within a tight timetable.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland administers the Scottish rate support grant under separate legislation, and the same problem does not arise. Some more minor difficulties in Scottish practice that have come to light will, however, also be remedied in the proposed legislation.
Authorities will be concerned, in the light of my statement, about the immediate position for 1987–88 and on outstanding supplementary reports. When the House returns in January I hope to announce my firm intentions for the 1987–88 settlement for England and the supplementary reports for 1986–87 and 1985–86. The Bill is designd to fulfil those intentions. I shall make the relevant reports immediately on Royal Assent to the validating Bill. Authorities will therefore be able to plan their budgets and rates for 1987–88 with confidence on the basis of my statement in January. Also in January, my right hon. Friends and I will inform designated authorities of the exact rate and precept limits that will be set for them in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
My Department is today writing to all authorities and their associations to explain the position.

Dr. John Cunningham: May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for the courtesy of the early notice of what is, by any test, a very complex and very important issue. This is the fourth statement on rate support grant in five months, and does it not demonstrate the absolute shambles into which Tory Ministers have driven local government finance?
For how long has the Secretary of State known of this situation? When did he first receive the legal advice to which he referred? Does it, for example, explain his refusal to make a rate support grant statement, as he promised he would, as long ago as mid-November? Why was the right hon. Gentleman not frank with the House about the matter when he answered my private notice question on 3 December, just a few days ago? Will not this latest Department of the Environment fiasco cause massive uncertainty about local authority budgets and rates throughout England and Wales? Will it not cause massive diffficulties especially for the local authorities framed by the right hon. Gentleman by his manipulation of the Rates Act?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been five Acts of Parliament on the issue in the past six years, and that the latest of them received the Royal Assent only on 31 October this year? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what a ministerial colleague was claiming for that Bill, which was rushed through the House? He said that the House was
about to pass a Bill which will clarify the law and make it what it was thought to be in a number of important … respects in relation to rate support grant settlements".—[Official Report, 21 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 151.]
How could a Minister be saying that as recently as July in the House, yet the right hon. Gentleman comes to us now and has to confess the appalling state of affairs into which he and his right hon. Friends have led that crucial national policy?
I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention what his Department said in a circular to local authorities when the original legislation was introduced. According to a report,
the Department of the Environment made it clear that total expenditure"—
which is at issue today—


for the calculation of block grant should include contributions from the rate fund to the housing revenue account and other trading accounts, and that it was only interest receipts on the rate fund revenue account which should be taken into account to adjust relevant expenditure to total expenditure.
What has changed since the Department made that statement?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will publish the Bill, how many clauses it will contain and what he expects from the House in dealing with it? How much time will be allowed? Given the Government's abysmal and repeated failures to get their legislation right, and the resulting massive backlash to local government, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it will be the duty of the House rigorously to scrutinise this proposed legislation? To do anything else would be an abdication of responsibility on both sides of the House. Does not this fiasco confirm the political incompetence of a succession of Tory Secretaries of State for the Environment, who have legislated themselves into what is clearly a maze of stupid legal controls?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman had some fun with his adjectives, but let me ask him what scrutiny he gave to the 1980 — [HON. MEMBERS: "No. What did you do?"] It takes me to do not only my job but the Opposition's job in pointing out what Parliament failed to stop in 1980. The hon. Gentleman talks about the events of 1981 and the circular from my Department. But he will know that local authority associations, including all the Labour-dominated ones, wanted the definition which has now been found to be in question. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he — [Interruption.] I listened with respect and quiet to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that the Opposition do not want to listen to the answers.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not help for hon. Members to shout, "Answer", across the Chamber. There is a very full day ahead of us.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman asked me some specific questions. The first intimation I had that the legal advice was as I have described it was towards the end of October, and this was confirmed in a second opinion. If I may, I should like, unusually, to quote the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that the first opinion was correct and that I should therefore correct the anomaly. As soon as proposals could be drafted and brought before the House, I made this announcement. The Bill will be published either tomorrow or the next day. I think that it will contain 17 clauses. I hope that the House will agree that, if it wants the Government to pay rate support grant in the next financial year, it would be expedient for the Bill to reach the statute book so that rate support grant can be paid in future.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the sympathy of many hon. Members, and not least of those who have held his high office before? Is not my right hon. Friend to be warmly commended for having come to the House at an early opportunity in order to make known the error discovered and his determination to put it right? Is this not another case of merely putting the law back to what

everybody thought that it was for the past five or six years? Is it not also clear that any attempt to hold up the Bill will merely postpone the final RSG settlement for 1987–88?

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend is exactly right and I am grateful to him. The Bill will simply seek to return to the legal position that everybody, including all local authorities, thought existed. It was the Government who spotted the error, so the credit should go to the Government for having identified a legal weakness and for having sought immediately and honourably to put it right, albeit at some inconvenience to the House. However, I hope that the House will not take too much trouble over the legislation, as no change of policy is involved. We are merely validating the past and putting right for the future the position that the whole House thought obtained.

Mr. David Alton: Was not the Secretary of State's statement that his illegal actions over the past seven years
did not seem to correspond to the statute
the most breathtaking understatement that the House has heard for a long time? Is he not today trying to make legal what was previously illegal, and admitting that the Government did not even understand their legislation when they introduced it seven years ago? Are the Government not now trying to pass the buck to the local authorities for the Government's own incompetence, ineptitude and inefficiency?

Mr. Ridley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making more out of this than it is worth. However, if he does not want the Government to pass this legislation, he will have to face the consequence that local authorities will not get their rate support grant settlement or any grant. I think that local authorities will be on to Opposition Members very quickly, asking them to facilitate the Bill's early passage so that they know where they are and can obtain the grant that they expect.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is my rt. hon. Friend aware that his statement should be welcomed by anybody who wants local government expenditure to be kept under control? Will he answer two straight questions? First, what effect will his announcement have on the authorities' ability to fix their rates for next year? Secondly, what effect will it have on their entitlement to grant this year?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. There should be no difficulty for authorities in fixing their rates by the due date of 1 April, because I shall make the settlement soon after the House returns in January, and they can plan on the basis of the settlement as then announced. There is no reason for them to delay making their rates until the Bill receives its Royal Assent. My announcement will not affect grant for this year, which will be paid in accordance with last year's formula and RSG settlement, although I cannot make a supplementary report until the Bill has received Royal Assent.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, quite apart from the display of recidivism that we have been presented with this afternoon, his announcement will provide considerable fuel to those across the political spectrum who believe that, if British local authorities were run as inefficiently and incompetently as the Department of the Environment has been during the past few years, the ratepayers would have far greater cause for concern than they might have because of any deficiency in local administration?

Mr. Ridley: That is a curious comment, because it was the local authority associations, many of which are run by the Labour party, that strongly made the case for this definition to be adopted. Now that it is being adopted, there seems to be some complaint from the hon. Gentleman. I agree with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the deficiencies in the system that we are trying to operate are becoming more manifest, but curiously enough, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced a Bill last week to reform the system in Scotland, every Opposition Member voted against it.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: If I understand the thrust of a complex and technical statement by my right hon. Friend, it is that I have spent £30 billion of taxpayers' money illegally. If this judgment is right, I promise him my unswerving and urgent support for the legislation.

Mr. Ridley: I thought for a moment that my right hon. Friend was going to offer to pay. I assure him that I would not suggest that for one moment. I do not suggest that we should apportion blame in this matter. There has been a distinction between what people thought the law was and what it is. We can easily put that right, and the House can then pass on to more important matters.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State suggesting that the next time somebody appears in court before a magistrate his defence should be that he was not certain what the law was, because that seems to be the Secretary of State's defence? Is it not obvious to all that the Government could not organise a reception in a lord major's parlour, let alone run the detailed day-to-day services of local government in the way that they are trying to do? Is not the way around this difficulty for the Government to drop their policy of trying to control in detail local government services and expenditure? If the Secretary of State introduced a Bill along those lines, we would support it.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. I am the only person who is quite certain what the law is. [Laughter.]

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Allan Roberts: There is another one.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: —in being the latest fall guy following, for example, Mr. Fred Mulley, who, as a Labour Minister and the political head of a Department, relied on inefficient and inadequate legal advice within his own Department.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Plead guilty but insane.

Mr. Ridley: However, I do not need sympathy. I have brought to the House a problem of which nobody else was aware, so my Department has the legal advice right when every local authority has it wrong.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the Secretary of State recall that, when he was Secretary of State for Transport, he tried to charge Londoners extra millions of pounds, and the judge said that it was illegal, improper and administratively incompetent, in words to that effect? Does that now describe the position in which

he has found himself? Will he take into account the needs of inner-city areas such as Newham in his means and needs formula?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has quoted the judge's words wrongly. If he wants to quote the judge, he should quote accurately and properly. I make a distinction between the events to which he referred and the events about which we are talking. In that case there was a court case, where the judge interpreted the law differently. [Laughter.] In this instance, I have anticipated and sought to put the law right before the matter went to court.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the practice which has now been found to be wrong in law — [HON. MEMBERS: "Illegal."] — has operated to the benefit of local authorities generally and that if the House does not put it right, local authorities will be in severe financial difficulty this year? Does that not argue that legislation for a general review and revision of the complicated finance system of local government should be introduced quickly?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. It will not be possible to pay rate support grant to local authorities in the next financial year, without the Bill becoming law. That would put them in severe financial difficulties. We have held our review into the future of the present system of local authority finance. The Scottish Bill will be followed by the English Bill, which will do away with the legislation that we are discussing and replace it with, a more sensible system.

Mr. George Foulkes: Exactly what did the Secretary of State mean by "minor difficulties" in Scottish practice and what are the implications? Will there be a separate Scottish statement?

Mr. Ridley: In Scotland, transfers between the general rate fund and special funds have been counted as expenditure when the Secretary of State has determined grant penalties for overspending authorities. The Bill will therefore validate past decisions on grant penalties and, for the future, allow my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to continue to take account of such transfers when he is considering imposition of grant penalties and action to reduce an authority's rate. There will be two clauses dealing with Scotland.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is the least guilty in a long line of guilty Ministers who have produced one local government Bill after another, and that some of us spelt out the dangers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when we are told that what we all thought was right is wrong, he is really saying that what he thought was right many of us knew was wrong? We must ensure that justice, and not expediency, prevails, as has been the case year after year with Bill after Bill.

Mr. Ridley: Wise and profound as many of my hon. Friend's statements in that supplementary question were, I do not quite see the question for me.

Mr. Clive Soley: How many times as a Minister in this or other Departments has the right hon. Gentleman been found to be in breach of the law?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is trying to score an incredibly naive point. Every hon. Member is in breach of the law in this regard for not having drawn attention to the deficiencies in the system.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is it really the case that, until my right hon. Friend made his statement this afternoon, not one Labour Member, not one Liberal Member, not one member of the Opposition Front Bench in another place and not even the glittering talents of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) could have understood that which my right hon. Friend now understands?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I understood that it was wrong.

Mr. Gow: Ought not my right hon. Friend, who has a brain that is even finer than that of his four distinguished predecessors, to earn the congratulations of the House? Does he agree that, when he presents his Bill to the House, he will be restoring the law to that which Parliament intended, and which the Opposition, the Liberals and local authorities believed was the law? Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has earned the admiration of the House for his courage?

Mr. Ridley: I join my hon. Friend in bewailing the fact that, for all the barrack-room lawyers in the Opposition, not one spotted this problem and it was left to me, who am not even a lawyer, to explain it to the House.

Mr. Frank Cook: Overwhelmed as I am by the Secretary of State's singular—aye, unique—awareness and understanding of current statutes, and bearing in mind the importance and complexity of the issue, why, when the Secretary of State was first made aware of it in mid-October, was no reference made to it in the Queen's Speech on 12 November?

Mr. Ridley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if one comes with a problem to the House it is right to offer some solution. A Bill will be published tomorrow or the day after which deals with the problem that I have put before the House. Opposition Members would have been right to criticise me if I had brought the problem without the faintest idea of a solution.

Mr. Michael Latham: Instead of tinkering around with a system which my right hon. Friend knows to be obsolete, why does he not introduce immediately his community charge Bill and make these retrospective provisions effective in a clause of that Bill?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is so much more percipient. Would that I could introduce the new Bill. I cannot say that it would have the same level of preparation as the Bill that I have announced, although I greatly wish that it would. If we could deal expeditiously with the rest of the business before the House, I am sure that I could fit that Bill in before the end of the Session, if the House would pass it on the nod.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to bear in mind that we have a further statement and a heavy day ahead of us. I shall take two more questions from either side and then we must move on to the Welsh statement.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is it not a fact that, in trying to make local government the whipping boys for the failure of Government policies, the Secretary of State has proved himself to be the failure?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. I simply seek to ask the House to validate the practice which local authorities want and which everybody thought was in place.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Has not the grave disparity between taxation and representation at local authority level forced the Government down the path of increasing complexity to protect ratepayers from the rapacious attention of local authorities? Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the widest support on this side of the House for his root and branch treatment of the problem by his introduction of the community charge in place of rates? Can he ensure that, in the legislation, he pays particular attention to the need to simplify legislation, so that people who are not ordinarily concerned with local authority finance can understand what is involved?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I wish I were introducing, not this Bill, but the one to which he refers, which would put a community charge in place and reform the whole system. But past rate support grant settlements are in question and the future rate support grant settlement for 1987–88; which must take place whatever happens because it is imminent, cannot be validated unless the Bill becomes law. It would be wrong to allow my hon. Friend's general strictures on the present system and the need to reform it in any sense to be involved in the need for this Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman has found himself at odds with the law on more than one occasion in the past. He is not just a recidivist but an incompetent recidivist. Is it not a fact that, from the beginning, he knew that he had to introduce retrospective legislation? Similarly, it is not the first time that he has had to do that. Is it not a fact that there is a big difference between a mistake being found in local government, which is penalised and surcharged and, indeed, whose goods are put at risk, and a Minister being found to have acted incompetently and illegally, who merely uses parliamentary sovereignty to introduce new legislation? Is it not time that we equalled the odds? The best way of doing that is for the Minister to resign and take this shambles of a Government with him.

Mr. Ridlley: I cannot see what the hon. Gentleman means. I have done nothing incompetent or illegal. When I realised that to make a rate support grant settlement in January would be illegal, I came to the House to ask it to give me the validating powers so that I could take action to make the settlement. Nothing that I have done has transgressed the law.

Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend is obviously right to make a statement today and to introduce legislation. Nevertheless, does he accept from someone who, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), battled long and hard against block grants years ago, that this is but the latest instance whereby we have underlined the foolishness of giving so much support from the centre, through a series of measures created by the centre, to local government? Instead, we should rely on a system which gives greater accountability to local authorities.

Mr. Ridley: I cannot claim in aid the advantages of the reform of local authority finance that we are proposing in the Bill, which is about validating the past and ensuring


that we continue for next year. I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend's conversion to the need for a change of system and I hope that when we get closer to home than Scotland on these matters, he will be with us in the Lobby.

Dr. Cunningham: If the right hon. Gentleman is, as he claims, the only person who is certain what the law is now, how will he, of all people, persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to follow him into the Lobby to vote for it? Is it not the case that this insight results, not from some brilliance on his part, but from a legal challenge to the Government from the London borough of Greenwich, which the Government are desperate to have set aside in the courts? Is it not the case that all his claims of a brilliant reading of the legislation are false? Will he confirm that this has come to light because of a legal challenge to the Government?
Will the Secretary of State explain, more adequately than he has done so far, why he has been sitting on this information for six weeks? Why did he not bring it to the House when he spoke in the Queen's Speech debate, or announce it on 3 December when he had the opportunity? Will not this delay on his part mean further unnecessary uncertainty and delay both to the resolution of the problem and to the fixing of local authority finance for next year?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. It will not cause further delay or difficulties, because I shall make a settlement as soon as the House returns. Local authorities can then proceed to set their external limits, precept limits and rates in the proper timetable during the Bill's passage, but in the full knowledge of what the Government intend to put before the House. Therefore, that point is false.
A perfect hail of legal cases are brought by local authorities against the Government. There is no case before the courts that I know of based on the lacuna which I have exposed to the House today. Therefore, that is not appropriate.
It is right that the full legal position should be made clear in public, so that the courts know that the Government intend to put the law as it was thought to be. The hon. Gentleman had better wait to see how many of my hon. Friends follow me into the Lobby. I hope that I shall have the support of many of his hon. Friends who have the sense to want to see rate support grant paid.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this is not because the hon. Members were, sadly, not called.

Mr. Janner: My point of order arises directly from the statement, Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State's statement concerns a most important rule of law and as on this occasion, as opposed to others, it appears that he consulted the Attorney-General, would it not be right for the Attorney-General to make a statement to the House on the criminal implications of the Government's regrettable behaviour?

Mr. Speaker: Who makes the statement is not a matter for me.

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) the Secretary of State let slip the Scottish aspects of the statement. It is one thing for the Secretary of State for the Environment to get himself into trouble for giving money to local authorities in England illegally yet, as I believe he suggested to my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland had been taking money away from local authorities in Scotland illegally. There is another name for that and I hope that the Scottish Law Officers are considering the matter. Would it be appropriate or possible to ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the Chamber and makes an appropriate statement?

Mr. Speaker: Again, that is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman's point will have been heard.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise directly out of this matter?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, yes—it is seriously a point of order. I was wondering whether, if the BBC, which produces the programme "Yes, Prime Minister", were to come along and ask you whether it could have a copy of the script of today's events you would feel that it was a little over the top. If you provided it, would you be prepared to stand up to any bullying that might come from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster trying to stop the BBC from screening those events?

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that what has happened in the Chamber this afternoon would be happy as far as the electors are concerned — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I mean the noise.

Rate Support Grant (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Welsh rate support grant.
I will deal first with the implications for Wales of the statement which has just been made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The definition of relevant and total expenditure adopted in rate support grant reports for Wales since 1981 with the agreement of local government in Wales is, for the reasons outlined by my right hon. Friend, now seen as not meeting statutory requirements and being incorrect in law. Until this is put right, I am unable to make further RSG reports. The urgent legislation being brought to the House will therefore validate for Wales as well as for England all past decisions involving the use of total or relevant expenditure and allow future decisions to be taken in line with previous practice.
I wish to do everything possible to minimise difficulties for local government so that it can proceed with budgeting and rating for the coming financial year. I am today giving to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance and to all Welsh county and district councils full details of my intentions for the main report for 1987–88 and the supplementary report for 1986–87. A copy of my statement has been placed in the Library. The supplementary reports for 1984–85 and 1985–86 will be the subject of further consultation. My intentions take account of the views expressed to me by the Welsh local authority associations and individual councils during consultations. They are, of course, dependent upon the approval by the House of these reports, which will be laid upon enactment of the Local Government Finance Bill.
It is very important that councils should feel able to proceed with their planning over the coming months in the knowledge that my intentions are firm. They therefore have my assurance that it is the Government's intention not to take into account in the main report for 1987–88 and the supplementary report for 1986–87 any new data or representations received after 3 December; the Bill will provide for this. It can therefore be assumed for the purpose of calculating grant entitlements that the information I am making available today will be reflected in those reports. New or revised data will be taken into account in supplementary reports for the years concerned, as will be any additional resources for teachers' pay.
I turn now to the detail of my intentions for 1987–88. Provision for relevant expenditure will be £1,734 million or over 6 per cent. higher than budgeted spending in 1986–87, and current expenditure will be 4·8 per cent. higher or more than 1 per cent. above the expected rate of inflation. Aggregate Exchequer grant will be £1,157 million, unchanged from that announced in July; domestic rate relief remains unchanged at 18½p in the pound. Block grant will be £901·7 million.
The local authority associations have stressed the need for stability between years in the grant distribution mechanisms. With this in mind I intend to retain the same basic block grant mechanisms used in the present year with no expenditure target for individual councils, and to leave unchanged the slope of the grant-related poundage schedule. The total of authorities' GREs will be set in line with overall provision. The general consequence is that

decisions to increase spending will result in a cash reduction in grant for most authorities, while decisions to reduce spending will produce considerable rating benefits.
Grant recycling was justified in 1986–87 as an interim measure during the first year of operation of the new mechanisms following the abolition of targets. This measure is no longer appropriate and I intend that the settlement for 1987–88 should give the further certainty of ensuring that each authority's grant entitlement will depend solely on its spending decisions and not be affected by decisions taken by other authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have already said that we propose to introduce legislation in the near future to abolish recycling.
In the first supplementary report for the current year, 1986–87, I intend to recycle block grant in full. Changes to aggregate relevant expenditure following from increases in police pay, expenditure on midday supervision in schools and GCSE will increase block grant by £1·3 million and the total of specific grants will be increased to £174·7 million. The contribution of Welsh local authorities to the England and Wales further education pool will be £3·5 million. The total of local authorities' GREs for the year will be amended in line with provision, but authorities' block grant entitlements will not be affected.
The settlement that I intend to make for 1987–88 is a very good one for Wales. The increases in all the main components—relevant expenditure, current expenditure, aggregate Exchequer grant and block grant—are well above the forecast rate of inflation.
I am sure that there will be general agreement that central and local government should work together to ensure that spending and rating decisions for next year are not hindered by the delay in our being able to make RSG reports. Today's announcement of my intentions will enable Welsh local authorities to reach their decisions in an orderly way. There can be no doubt that in so doing they must have regard to the interests of ratepayers and taxpayers. I am confident that the Welsh local authority associations and all Welsh councils will recognise this and will respond constructively to the opportunity they now have to budget for very low rate rises indeed.

Mr. Barry Jones: When did the right hon. Gentleman first know that the decisions concerning relevant and total expenditure were illegal? Has he known for six weeks? Will two supplementary reports consequently be queried? What sums of cash are involved? Is it not the case that there have been five Acts of Parliament of which the right hon. Gentleman—uniquely and exceptionally—has been a sponsor, and is it not also the case that he stands condemned of being a sponsor of legislation that creates chaos?
In relation to the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, may I remind the Secretary of State that local authorities in Wales have used transfers between funds to achieve the best results for ratepayers? Does he understand that if local accounts are reopened it is possible that they will be liable to grant penalties? That would be unjust, because it will have been done in good faith. Will the right hon. Gentleman be absolutely clear in his response and grant indemnity to Welsh local authorities?
If the Government do not comprehend their own rules and legislation, what hope is there for the local authorities? They are innocent. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that


time and again we urged him to ensure that Wales was exempted from the Government's authoritarian local government legislation. He ignored us every time that we made that point.
At the last minute, the Secretary of State for Wales resolved to come to the House with his statement. It was very prudent of him to ditch his plan to release the statement by the shabby device of a written answer. Is it not the case that the apparent increase over last year's settlement shows how unrealistic those figures were? Is he not aware that nothing extra is provided to meet the substantial backlog of needs that has built up in recent years as a result of his inadequate funding and the 125 per cent. increase in unemployment since he took office? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that specific grants are taking up an increasing share of the total grant figure and that major uncertainty continues to cloud the teachers' pay restructuring proposals?
The greatest bone of contention is the decision to end grant recycling. It is disgraceful for the Government to propose to legislate to empower the Welsh Office to withhold grant. Is it not a return to the worst aspects of the target and penalty system that the Secretary of State boasted recently he had abolished? Only the Treasury will benefit by this dubious sleight of hand.
Having talked today to the Welsh districts on their receipt of the RSG statement as the right hon. Gentleman made it, the average rate increase for district councils will be at least 10 per cent., flowing as it does from his statement today. Do not his own Department's figures show rate rises for half the 37 Welsh districts in excess of 10 per cent? I am informed there are likely to be increases individually of up to 20 per cent. That is the calculation of the Welsh districts.
The Government are claiming to be generous today, but, in fact, they are only putting right the shortcomings of last year's settlement. The 1 per cent. margin ahead of England which the right hon. Gentleman claims is illusory. In detail, Wales seems to have done less well, and in total that is quite clear. This statement is a confidence trick, and when Labour wins the election we will give Wales a fair deal.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) asked me when I knew. I knew shortly after the Secretary of State for the Environment knew. The hon. Gentleman talked about sums of cash being put at risk for local government and reopening past reports. There is no question of reopening the issues. The whole point is that the Bill will place local authorities in the position in which they would have been and in which they thought they were. It will validate the position as we have always operated it. As the hon. Gentleman said, we followed that path at the request of Welsh local government because it thought that it was to its benefit to make the transfers to which he referred. The accounts, therefore, are not being reopened. We are merely ensuring that local government can proceed in the way in which it wished to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman described me as authoritarian with local government, but the very fact that we sought to meet the wishes of Welsh local government in this respect disproves that allegation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to teachers' pay. The position on teachers' pay has been made clear. The

Government have made known their intentions and the fact that the ratepayer and the taxpayer will contribute to the additional costs involved.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the relative scale of the settlement compared with England and whether it was a good settlement. The increase of relevant expenditure of 6·1 percent., the increase of current expenditure of 4·8 per cent. and the increase in aggregate Exchequer grant of 8·4 per cent. are all way ahead of expected inflation. Indeed, the increases in relevant expenditure and current expenditure are higher than in England. In addition, there has been an increase of 14 per cent. in capital expenditure for Welsh local authorities, and those authorities have done exceptionally well out of that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the balance between district authorities and counties. There has been a higher rate of increase in expenditure by counties in recent years than by districts, arising from such items as police and teachers' pay. The GREs that I am now announcing simply reflect that historic fact. As far as we can, we are producing firm estimates of what the actual position is, based on the actual expenditure of the Welsh counties and districts, and we hope that as a result of making those estimates we will have to make less substantial adjustments in future when we produce the supplementary reports.
The hon. Gentleman referred in an alarmist way to district rate increases. He talked about figures of 10 and 20 per cent. He was talking about poundage increases. In no case will the rate bill in districts increase by anything like that figure. Indeed, I see no reason, in the great majority of cases, why those increases should not be in single figures, even low single figures. The hon. Gentleman also knows that the rate bill that people pay comes through from counties and districts, and by far the largest element is the county part of it. In every authority except West Glamorgan—which used balances very substantially last year, had a lower than average settlement last year and is a high spender—I would expect rate increases to be very low. Indeed, there are counties where it should be possible to have a reduction in the rate bill, and that includes my county of Dyfed.

Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. Friend and I have had our differences in the past. May I take this opportunity to salute him as a great Secretary of State and ask him whether he is aware of how much sadness and dismay his announcement yesterday that he is to retire at the next election has caused on both sides of the House? Is he aware that never more clearly than today has he demonstrated the skill and authority that he exerts in guiding us through the morass of local government finance, which has been revealed by the two ministerial statements today?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the relevation of the incredible complexity of that morass does not in itself suffice to quell the doubts of some Conservative Members who believe that the system of a community charge, which is to be introduced, although it will no doubt be simpler, may turn out in the end to be nearly as difficult to work as the present system?

Mr. Edwards: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Indeed, a number of people have said similar kind things, to such an extent that I almost think I must repeat the process of saying that I will not stand at the next election. It is the only occasion that has


prompted a lot of nice things to be said to me in political terms for a long time. I must also say that, although it might have been, it was not the complexity of the rate support grant system that prompted my decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) is a long-time critic of the present system. However, I must say that when the Government, after careful consideration, come forward with a major proposal for the reform of local government he cannot simply turn around and say that that will not work either, without producing an alternative. I believe that in the face of the difficulties of a complex system, which he has fairly criticised, the Government are absolutely right to come forward with a firm commitment to introduce legislation immediately after the election to introduce the new system and to follow the route rightly taken by our Scottish colleagues.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is extremely regrettable that for the past five years he and his colleagues in the Welsh Office have acted unlawfully? Does he also agree that it is disgraceful for restrospective legislation to be introduced now to try to get the Secretary of State out of that corner? Is it not as disgraceful as the retrospective legislation that has been proposed to help out Liverpool councillors? Will the Secretary of State tell the House what precedents there are, if any, for retrospective legislation of this sort? Further, will he tell the House what difference his intentions will make to the high level of unemployment in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry that, as a lawyer, the hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to spot the difficulties himself and that it had to be the Government who brought them to his attention. I look forward very much to the hon. and learned Gentleman going to Welsh local authorities, and to those whom they serve, and telling them that he and his party will oppose this legislation. Welsh local government will be shocked and dismayed by such an attitude. We are seeking to validate what local government in Wales wanted, and what it still wants.

Mr. Barry Jones: That is not true.

Mr. Edwards: It is absolutely true. Then we shall be able to take the necessary decisions on rating and expenditure as quickly as possible. It is absolute nonsense for the hon. and learned Gentleman to threaten to delay this legislation. That could only do grave damage to local government in Wales.

Mr. Keith Raffan: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on yet again obtaining such a favourable settlement for Wales. I said that last year, the year before that and also the year before that. No Secretary of State has done more for the Principality than has my right hon. Friend. That is recognised outside the House as well as inside it—on both sides, I believe.
Is my right hon. Friend able to give a further assurance to the House that the increase in teachers' pay will not be allowed completely to distort the 4·75 per cent. that he has allowed for pay and prices? Will he continue to emphasise, to Clwyd in particular, the need to tackle the problem of surplus school places? Tackling just 40 per cent. of the 16,000 surplus school places in Clwyd, as the director of education proposed, would release £750,000 for books and equipment.

Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the need to remove surplus school places. He is absolutely right to emphasise that point. Without the consequences of the teachers' pay settlement, if it goes through on the basis that the Government have urged and the accompanying contributions that will have to be made by ratepayers, there would have been a fall in rates in Clwyd. If one makes a reasonable assumption about the contribution of local ratepayers to such a settlement, there is no need for rate increases in Clwyd, or they should be very small. That confirms that the settlement is a very good one for Welsh ratepayers.

Mr. Donald Coleman: The right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for the Environment have revealed once again this Government's illegal behaviour. Has this not come about because the Government have pursued local government over penalties and targets? What confidence can Welsh local authorities have that the right hon. Gentleman got it right this time?

Mr. Edwards: The action that we took and which has caused these difficulties was not because we pursued local government. We responded to local government representations; they wished the Government to do this. Now that we have found that the law does not permit us to do it, we are seeking immediately to validate the matter so that we can meet the wishes of Welsh local government. I hope that in doing so we shall have the support of the House of Commons; otherwise Opposition Members will have to explain why they want to damage and destroy Welsh local government by making it impossible for Welsh local government to proceed in the way that it wishes so to do.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Last night's news came as a great surprise, even as an unwelcome surprise. Wales is losing the best Secretary of State that it has ever had. Is my right hon. Friend able to reassure me that he will do all that he possibly can to ensure that the uncaring South Glamorgan county council will not again land my constituents with the highest rates increase in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that all Welsh local authorities should aim to keep down their rates bills and to respond to the representations made to them by industry and domestic ratepayers. Although it is likely that the effect of the switch between district councils could lead to a relatively high increase in Cardiff rates, there is no reason why domestic rate bills in South Glamorgan should rise significantly in the period ahead.

Mr. Ray Powell: Can the Secretary of State claim any legal knowledge of the statement that was made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who claimed that only he had legal knowledge of this issue? Does the right hon. Gentleman have legal knowledge that would enable him to answer on the legal aspect of this issue? The right hon. Gentleman said that Welsh local government had not suffered because of the cuts in rates and that the House should support future legislation. If we look at the Government's record during the last seven years, we realise that local authority councillors all over Wales will be clapping their hands with joy because he sneaked to Pembroke last night to announce his resignation. Although we wish the right hon.


Gentleman well and hope that his health will improve, we should be demanding his resignation today rather than at the next general election.

Mr. Edwards: I do not know that to go down to meet one's executive is to sneak anywhere. I told the executive in my constituency what I intended to do, and I hope that in similar circumstances the hon. Gentleman will do the same. However, I doubt whether the executive of the hon. Gentleman's local Labour party bothers to meet.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I have legal knowledge. I claim no more specialist legal knowledge than I suspect the hon. Gentleman has. I take the legal advice that is available to the Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to the consequences for local government if the validation is not carried out. If the Bill is not passed, the consequence will be that local government will have no money; it will have no grants from central Government. We shall be unable to make grants to local government. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to work out whether that will be good or bad for local government.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I echo what was said by my hon. Friends about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is to resign as a Member of Parliament at the next general election. The Opposition must surely acknowledge that my right hon. Friend is one of the best Secretaries of State for Wales that we have had. He will be missed by industrialists and local authorities and by all those whom he has served so well in the Principality. What advice is my right hon. Friend able to give to local authorities to enable them to spend more capital on house repairs?

Mr. Edwards: Of one thing I am absolutely certain. It is that my hon. Friend will be representing his Cardiff constituents in this House after the next general election and that he will be doing it as well and as vigorously as he has always done.
As for more expenditure on house repairs, this Government have made substantial allocations to Welsh local authorities for housing. I have spoken about the overall capital increase of 14 per cent. If Welsh local authorities continue to keep down current spending, which has been done far better in Wales than in England in recent years, we shall be able to continue to make additional capital available to them, because there is a relationship between keeping current expenditure down and having more money to spend on capital projects.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Apart from party political issues, I wish the Secretary of State a healthy retirement. In fact, I hope that his health improves. Why has the Secretary of State not made a specific allowance within the grant settlement for educational development? In South Wales in particular, a massive re-education and training programme has to be undertaken because of the complete restructuring of our economy. My hon. Friends and I cannot find any money within this settlement that has been set aside specifically for the educational development that we so desperately need.

Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the hon Gentleman for his opening remarks. When I meet Welsh local authorities they always argue that there are too many specific grants and that they do not want to go further down that particular route. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of a specific grant for education.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State make absolutely clear his position on teachers' pay? Does he assume that there will be a Government-imposed solution of the teachers' pay dispute, of the kind proposed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science? If that is so, parents will be very concerned about the possible turmoil that it will cause. What part of this settlement will lead to smaller classes, in particular for core subjects leading to the general certificate of secondary education? We want to make that system work, but there is insufficient money at the moment to make it work.

Mr. Edwards: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we made additional sums of money available for the new examination system and, of course, local authorities have it within their power to vote further resources, not least by cutting down on surplus school places, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has already said. I trust that the Government will not have to impose a settlement, because I hope that those engaged in negotiation and consultation will meet the requirements which the Government believe are essential if we are to have an education structure in this country that fully meets childrens' needs. That is what our priority should be.

Dr. John Marek: Is the Secretary of State aware that local government will regard his statement as one of gross incompetence on the part of the Government, and that for the past seven years the local authorities in Wales have been fighting the depredations of the Secretary of State and the Government in trying to cut education, housing and social services? The Government's gross incompetence can be put right only if the legislation to be introduced by the Secretary of State frees local government to look after all the people in Wales. Does the Secretary of State understand that the legislation will be judged on that basis by the Opposition? It will be scrutinised with care to see what it does to let local government serve the people of Wales once again.

Mr. Edwards: The validity—or lack of it—of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is perhaps borne out by the facts. Education expenditure in Wales during the past five or six years has been virtually stable in real terms, although there has been a substantial reduction in pupil numbers, and expenditure on social services by local government in Wales has increased. The Bill that we propose to introduce will put local government back in the position that it thought it was in and will enable it to proceed with this rate support grant settlement. If such legislation is not passed promptly, there will be a delay in paying grant to local government, and that can only be damaging to it.

Airborne Early Warning System

Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed purchase by the Government of an early warning system for the Royal Air Force.
The matter is specific—whether the Government should purchase a British system or a foreign system. The matter is important because the decision will have fundamental consequences for our national defences, for Britain's defence industries and, of course, for the British taxpayer. The matter is urgent because during the next few days the Cabinet may make decisions on this matter and because, although the Secretary of State for Defence has publicly expressed his confidence in the British system, officials in his Department are publicly and actively canvassing the case for the purchase of the system of the foreign contractor.
We believe that the matter is so important that, before any irrevocable decisions are taken, it should be debated immediately in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for an independent inquiry into the purchase of a new early warning system for the Royal Air Force".
I listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman said, as indeed I listened to the submission made yesterday by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in slightly different terms. I regret that I have to give the same answer as I gave yesterday. I do not consider that the submission meets all the criteria under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House today.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I beg your guidance please? My experience is somewhat limited, so this is a genuine inquiry. The Christmas Adjournment debate took place yesterday, so we do not have that opportunity for a debate, and by the time we reconvene on 12 January—bearing

in mind the ardent efforts of the Boeing sales force—the ink could be dry on any contract that may ensue from these negotiations. Therefore, what possible opportunity could I have to bring the full opinion of the House to bear on a subject of such great gravity and seriousness?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, an opportunity may arise to discuss that matter.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the exchanges that took place during the Christmas Adjournment debate yesterday evening and my demand that the Leader of the House should rearrange the week's business so that it would be possible to debate this important matter before decisions are taken. You will also have heard the strong refusal of the Leader of the House to change the order of business. That being so, what opportunities are now left to debate the matter before the Cabinet presents the House with a fait accompli?

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The issue was debated last night. Has the right hon. Gentleman told you why he was not here to discuss it last night?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the shadow Leader of the House to read my ruling carefully.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, it is imperative that the House should have an opportunity to discuss this matter before a Cabinet decision is taken. The Cabinet will meet on Thursday morning. If there is no emergency debate—we do not challenge your ruling about tomorrow—and since no business statement is being made today, clearly, by definition, there cannot be any debate on this issue before a decision is taken. Therefore, in what context are we to construe your judgment, Mr. Speaker, that an opportunity may rise? Clearly, no opportunity can arise in advance of a decision being taken.

Mr. Speaker: Business can be changed through the usual channels if that is a way of dealing with this matter. There have been cases of business statements being made other than at 3.30 pm.

Attorney-General (Member's Reference)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, in column 793 of Hansard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) cast an inadmissible reflection upon the honour of the Attorney-General. At the time I did not notice it, but having considered it carefully in Hansard this morning, I ask him, please, to withdraw it.

Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity and to the Attorney-General for being present in the House today. It is as I predicted yesterday morning: if the Attorney-General had replied for the Government in yesterday's debate, I know that the entire debate would have taken a different course. It is unfortunate that one has to deploy such an elaborate ruse to secure the attendance of the Attorney-General in the Chamber—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will deal with it in my time. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has such comments shouted at him he cannot possibly get on with his apology. Will he please get on with it?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You asked me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker, yet the House knows that the Attorney-General had a duty to prosecute Chapman Pincher in 1981.

Mr. Robert Atkins: This is an abuse.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was for the Attorney-General to decide whether Pincher was prosecuted under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act or section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. He failed in his duty. He had a duty to prosecute Sir Dick White and Arthur Martin. Now, five and a half years later, he says that he is considering—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to withdraw the comment about the Attorney-General not to carry on the debate which took place yesterday.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am about to deal precisely with your request, Mr. Speaker.
It was the Attorney-General who failed to prosecute Rupert Allason and those who fed him classified material, and all the time he hides behind the skirts of the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now, please, withdraw his comment and, in fairness, not carry on the debate?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You asked me, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw my accusation. Out of deference to the Chair, I unreservedly do so. The Attorney-General's honour must stand intact and I am required to accept that. As to his conduct, history will make its judgments, and such judgments may not be based on that which is published in the monthly bound volumes of the Official Report.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Robert Atkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon Gentleman has now made his withdrawal. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] He has. It does not help the House or its reputation to seek to continue points of order when an hon. Gentleman has done that.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose—

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking a point of order on this matter.

Mr. Forth: I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, for future occasions. When a Member of the House asks leave to withdraw a statement that he has made, will it be in order on any future occasion for such an hon. Member to use the occasion of what he claims to be a withdrawal to repeat allegations or to make other statements which are equally bad?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to that is no.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on an entirely different matter.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I clarify your ruling? There are two specific allegations in the column referred to, one following immediately after the other. The one allegation reads:
I am told that the Attorney-General is desperate for the Woolsack."—[Official Report. 15 December 1986; Vol. 107, c.793.]
The second allegation relates to the 30 pieces of silver. I can understand the objection to the second section about the 30 pieces of silver.
Do we understand for the record that you, Sir, are ruling that it is in order for the allegation that the Attorney-General is desperate for the Woolsack to stand and that it is the piece in relation to the 30 pieces of silver that must be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker: Since the hon. Gentleman wants clarification on that point, I am forced to say to him that it is the last sentence to which I take exception.

Later—

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). Are we to take it from the earlier statement made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that we may regard what he said earlier this afternoon as a precedent for a withdrawal?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should keep his ears open, please. I have already said no.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). If I understood your decision correctly, Mr. Speaker, you were in fact saying that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has not made a withdrawal of what he said.

Mr. Speaker: I did not say that. I said that it would not be taken as a precedent in making a withdrawal of something that had been said, and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) finally—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Unreservedly.

Mr. Speaker: —unreservedly, withdrew what had been said. It should not be taken as a precedent to carry on a debate. I hope that the House understands that.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Forgive me for not following your guidance entirely, but it seems to me that you are allowing the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell- Savours)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the matter [Interruption.] Order. I am not prepared to say any more about it. It is not a precedent that should be followed by any other hon. Member and I will not allow it. [Interruption.] Order. I did not know that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would take as long as he did to make his withdrawal. When I saw him about this matter he told me that he would make a withdrawal, and he has done so. Let us leave it at that.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I should like to be in the position to thank the hon. Gentleman for his apology. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that this is not be be a precedent; in my view, that means that it was not a withdrawal, and I do not treat it as such. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Speaker: In order to clarify this matter, would the hon. Member for Workington be kind enough to repeat his unreserved withdrawal so that the House is in no doubt about it?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have made it very clear that I unreservedly withdraw.

Members' Telephone Calls

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Another point of order altogether, Sir.
One of your prime concerns, Mr. Speaker, is to safeguard the rights and privileges of hon. Members. The matter that I wish to raise lies very much within your role as guardian of those rights.
I received yesterday a letter which has most disturbing implications. It was written by someone who was privy to the modernisation of the telephone network covering the Whitehall area. The key to that network was the CBX tandem which gave access to all telephone calls, internally and externally, and to some 70,000-plus telephone lines.
I have the letter here and I shall pass it to you, Mr. Speaker. You will, I believe, be already aware of the contents of a large part of that letter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) quoted it, at my request, yesterday.
The writer makes specific technical statements about the means of intercepting telephone calls made by hon. Members. He states the location of the buildings which house this massive equipment and explains the precise positioning of a particular room.
The letter says:
Over a period of time, mostly outside normal working hours, a room immediately to the left at the bottom of the steps"—
the writer has mentioned the building earlier—
was installed with extensive and very sophisticated equipment.
Later in the same letter, the writer says:
It soon became accepted by all the Post Office now (BT staff) and the contracting engineers that the only possible purpose for which this equipment could be used was intercepting telephone calls.
The writer claims that all the installations and equipment were mounted
a few weeks after MPs received push-button telephones instead of dial telephones.
The writer appears to have no doubts about the purpose of that operation—the easy facility for eavesdropping on Member's calls both inside and outside the House.
I address this matter to you, Sir, in the eager expectation that you will require the matter to be investigated. If you argue that that responsibility lies in hands other than your own, I am sure that the House would urge you to advise them how the matter should be pursued because the implications are profoundly disturbing. Will you kindly, Sir, take this letter away with you and let the House have your views and advice tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether I can promise to let the House have my views tomorrow, as I shall need to study the matter and go into it with care. I have not seen the letter, although I did see the allegations that were made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in yesterday's Hansard. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. David Winnick: On this point, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) today and by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) yesterday, would you consider this to be a matter of the utmost priority? One never knows, but if the


allegation is true and steps have been taken to intercept hon. Members' calls, the responsibility falls on all sides and, of course, on yourself, Sir, to try to ensure that the system is discontinued. Would you also accept that any investigation which takes place should be under your direct control, not under the Government's control, because we have no confidence that any such inquiry carried out on behalf of the Government would in any way be thorough or impartial?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the installation of telephones in the House. I have as much difficulty in using the new system as, I think, everybody else. I shall look into the matter and see whether I have any responsibility for it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In column 863 of yesterday's Hansard, I returned to the subject of the letter, pointing out that you were in a great difficulty because neither you nor your colleagues on the Clerk's staff are detectives in any way. I also asked that the Leader of the House should use the facilities that are available to him to help the House to look into these matters.

Mr. Speaker: I say again that I do not think that the telephones are my responsibility.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be allowed to finish, please. I cannot say more than I have said to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). If he will let me have the letter I shall study it with the greatest care to see whether I have a responsibility and, if I have not, who has.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Sir. I am most grateful. It is not simply a question of your responsibility, or whoever's responsibility it is for the putting in of these telephone interception bits of

machinery. Surely this is a prima facie breach of privilege and, if the accusations are true, that is very much your responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman writes to me, treating the matter as a breach of privilege, in order that I can consider whether it might be a matter for the Privileges Committee to consider.

Mr. Faulds: Thank you, Sir.

BILLS PRESENTED

COMPANIES

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, supported by Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Robert Edwards, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Tom Normanton, Sir David Price, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. Richard Wainwright and Mr. Mark Wolfson, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the election and responsibilities of directors of companies; to require the circulation of particulars of candidates to the members before any election of directors; to require certain companies to appoint non-executive directors; to make provision in regard to the appointment of audit committees and to the functions and responsibilities of auditors; and to make other changes in the law relating to companies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 February and to be printed. [Bill 38].

RIGHT TO INTEREST

Mr. Richard Ottaway, supported by Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Michael Grylls, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Michael Knowles and Mr. Alan Stewart, presented a Bill to establish a legally enforceable right to interest on late payment of debts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February and to be printed. [Bill 39].

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confirm that it would be in order in the debate upon the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill to refer to the existing order which is the subject of the next item of business? When dealing with a Bill which amends the existing order, it is extremely difficult to draw a line between discussion of the existing status quo and the proposals in the Bill. It may well be that if the Chair were able to permit both matters to be covered in the debate, the House would be willing to come to a decision upon the second order immediately after having dealt with the motion for Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: That would be a matter for the decision of the House.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). It is my understanding that it would be convenient for the House to take together both the Bill and the continuance order. If the House so agrees I shall certainly address my remarks to both items.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on this matter?

Mr. Cook: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: If it is on an earlier matter I cannot take it now, because we have moved on to the Northern Ireland order.

Mr. King: The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill seeks to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The Bill is presented against the same background as that which existed at the time of the previous legislation. It is an attempt to achieve the fairest possible system of justice in a situation where, sadly, the presence of terrorism prevents the operation of the normal system of justice that we would all like to see. Today's bomb attack on the RUC station at Lisburn road in Belfast is a sombre reminder that the situation which made necessary the introduction of the emergency provisions in the first place continues. We face a continuing terrorist threat. There is no doubt that at the moment a serious campaign is being waged by the IRA to seek to intimidate and disrupt the lives of everybody in the Province.
The whole House will share with me a feeling of outrage, not just about this latest and pointless attack just before Christmas, and the damage that it has caused to so many people from both communities, but because it follows hard on the heels of the callous murder of a creamery worker in Killen and a dangerous and appalling

mortar attack in Newry. For both those attacks the IRA had the obscenity to apologise because, although the attacks caused casualties, they were not the casualties that the IRA had intended. Nothing could more clearly underline the fact that the IRA is the enemy of all decent people in Northern Ireland and that it poses a threat to both communities. It is tragic that the RUC warning given yesterday about the risk of an attempted bombing campaign before Christmas should have been so clearly confirmed.

Sir John Farr: The House will share my right hon. Friend's condemnation of these cowardly attacks. We all welcome what he said. Have these crimes been condemned in Dublin in the same forthright manner?

Mr. King: I can assure my hon. Friend that there have been the most categorical condemnations of these attacks and of all the activities of the IRA. It is important to remember the situation in Northern Ireland. An attack in Newry at this season of the year carries the real prospect, as there was when the three policemen were murdered, of injury to civilians. I was told that there were probably 30,000 people from the Republic shopping in Newry at the time of that attack. That is because it is advantageous for people from the Republic to shop in Northern Ireland. There has been unequivocal condemnation by the Irish Foreign Minister, by the Minister of Justice and by the Taoiseach.
While we feel a sense of outrage at these dastardly crimes, they demonstrate all the more clearly the debt that we owe to the security forces for the work that they have done in preventing more serious attacks. It will be fresh in the minds of all hon. Members that only this weekend the RUC prevented the transfer of a bomb on the way to Newry of approximately double the size of the one detonated today. The RUC apprehended certain gentlemen who, it is believed, were possibly involved in that event. Whether it is the discovery of a bomb factory in Andersonstown or in County Cavan, or the successful interception of the van with the explosives near Newry, these events underline recent successes. Mortars have also been discovered; the last two mortars were discovered by the Garda. Those successes underline our determination to take every effective measure to fight this campaign and defeat the IRA.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I shall give way when I have completed the point that I am making. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to join other hon. Members in paying tribute to all those in the security forces—the RUC, the UDR and the regular Army—for the way in which they have stood firmly against terrorism and for their clear determination to do all that they can to protect the community during this IRA campaign.

Mr. Maginnis: I certainly join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the security forces, but suggest that it does little good when the Secretary of State stands at the Dispatch Box and describes those who are bringing a 1,600 pound bomb into Newry as gentleman. Would he not get his language right and refer to them as the terrorists that they are?

Mr. Seamus Mallon: That is niggling.

Mr. King: I was showing a proper concern that people are innocent until they are proved guilty. I have no hesitation in saying that if they are the guilty men, there is no word in the English language too low to express my condemnation of them. They are people who are prepared to inflict the sort of agony and suffering that that cargo could have inflicted if it had reached its intended destination.
My tribute to the security forces is paid in the knowledge that they have had to stand in the front line against terrorism while having often to face intimidation. At the same time they have had to try to defeat the sectarian attacks which have disfigured parts of Northern Ireland in recent months.
Security policy is a key element in our overall strategy for the improvement of the condition of the Province, but political development and economic development must march hand in hand. We must look forward to the involvement in and acceptance of a constructive political role in the Province by both communities. If we are to have a cohesive strategy, we must see the creation in the Province of more employment and more opportunities for employment. We have had excellent news in the past day in two respects. The award of the Ministry of Defence contracts to Short Brothers will be widely applauded throughout the Province. Secondly, there are encouraging prospects for further orders overseas that will offer and secure further employment. There is other encouraging news.
We are aware, of course, of the economic background against which we are working. The problems surrounding shipbuilding, the tobacco industry and North sea oil have all threatened employment in the Province and are part of the difficulties that we face.
The successful creation of a security policy does not lie merely with the provision of more policemen and soldiers. I am mindful of the tribute that I have paid to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has grown in professionalism and skill over the years. It has become a substantially larger force. It is now better equipped, professional and highly trained, and is a credit to the Province. Over the years, and never more than in the past year, it has demonstrated its determination to police without fear or favour and impartially for both communities. In the battle that we fight against terrorism we are entitled to recognise the serious campaign that we face, to which I have drawn attention, but that must not be to ignore the RUC's achievements in forcing down the level of terrorism.
It is tragic that during this year there have been about 60 deaths from terrorist incidents, but we must remember that in 1975 there were 247. There were 503 incidents this year against 2,438 in 1975. From these figures we can measure the success that the security forces have had in reducing the level of terrorism, which is still obviously at an unacceptable level.
Along with our support for the work of the security forces must be a strategic security approach, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) has referred to the need for co-operation with the Republic. Recognising the amount of terrorism that is border-related, we shall be able to obtain great benefit if we achieve more effective co-operation. It is my determination and that of the Government continually to strive to improve co-operation. Coupled with that is a determination to deny terrorists resources and refuge, hence our efforts to improve arrangements for extradition with the

Republic, our success with the supplementary treaty with the United States and the recent extradition from the Netherlands. All these activities and events are part of the growing international support and the strategic approach that are designed to make the fight against terrorism and its conquest more effective.
Our strategy is to fight terrorism within the law. We want the most effective and vigorous action, but we believe that it must be always within the law. That is morally right. Any alternative will be bound ultimately to become counter-productive. It is the responsibility of the police, who lead in the fight against terrorism, to bring people to justice before the courts. Our aim and ambition is that the laws under which the courts will operate are fair and must comply with international standards of human and civil rights. Against a background of terrorism and the difficulties that that causes, the courts must diverge as little as possible from the ordinary law. It is vital to maintain the confidence of both communities in the institution of justice and we must do all that we can to ensure equal rights and remove grievances if they are fairly demonstrated, thus further to isolate the men of violence.
I have said that there must be as little divergence as possible, but perhaps the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) will advance the argument that there should be no divergence. I do not wish to anticipate his contribution, but there may be those who say that there is no case for this legislation, which within it contains divergence from the normal law. We do not believe that that approach is sustainable. Learned papers have recently been produced suggesting the return of jury trial for all terrorist offences, but we do not believe that that is a realistic proposition at present.
If we seek to maintain certain differences under the emergency provisions, however, it is our duty regularly to scrutinise them in great detail to ensure that they are justified and that any improvements that can be made are carried out. That will be done against the background of the original work of Lord Diplock, which was reviewed by Lord Gardiner and then reviewed by Sir George Baker, and I am presenting this evening some of the conclusions and implications of the further review.
I have said that we do not believe it possible to return to full jury trials for all offences, but we wish wherever possible to see more jury trials. An improvement that has already been made in advance of this legislation and the recommendation of Sir George Baker is that power has now been obtained by order for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to certify a greater range of cases where it would be possible to opt for jury trial.
We have also considered whether two or three judges are appropriate for trials in a court of first instance. We have given these proposals the most careful thought and I believe that the House will be interested to hear why we have decided not to incorporate in the Bill any provision to change the present arrangements. In considering the issues we bore in mind the conclusions of the Gardiner committee and of Sir George Baker that no change should be made to the Diplock procedures. Equally, we took full account of the recommendation of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights that scheduled cases should be heard by three judges.
The case for establishing such courts was presented forcefully by the representatives of the Irish Government in the course of discussion during the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. All the evidence shows


that the Diplock procedures, taken as a whole, successfully have maintained the highest standards of justice. In each of the past four years, acquittal rates in the Diplock courts have been within 2 percentage points of acquittal rates in the ordinary criminal courts. Despite the unfettered right of appeal from the Diplock courts, in 1985 proportionally fewer appeals were lodged against conviction for scheduled offences than in ordinary criminal cases.
The force of the safeguards often is not appreciated. When convicting, a judge must prepare a written judgment setting out his reasons. There is an unfettered right of appeal to the ordinary, three-man Court of Appeal against conviction or sentence, and on any ground. The effect of these two safeguards, taken together, is that the Court of Appeal effectively can consider issues of fact as well as issues of law. I shall not dwell on the other practical problems that suggest that a three-judge court would not necessarily produce better justice and might actually diminish the rights of the accused. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has set them out in a detailed document. Hon. Members may wish to refer to that document to examine certain other points that the commission fairly raised.
After the most careful consideration, the Government are not presently persuaded that this would be an appropriate change to make.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is running close to the wind. He almost suggests that trial without a jury approximates to trial with a jury and that there are certain safeguards that commend the former. It is nothing to do with that. It is to do with the terrible tragedy of Northern Ireland and justice—no matter whether it is 2 per cent. or whatever—is not, in the opinion of many of us, carried out in Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: I shall have to think about what the hon. Gentleman said. I am not sure that I entirely follow his remarks.
I was seeking to explain that there had been considerable discussions, as he may know, about whether there would or would net be benefits in changing the Diplock system in the first instance from one judge to three judges. I was seeking briefly to explain why I think that there are problems in that and why, after careful consideration, we are not presently persuaded that there is justification for that change. We have made it absolutely clear—I made it clear also in my earlier remarks—that we wish to keep the procedures under the emergency provisions under close review as we do.
Whatever amendments to the law we may make, such as we make in this legislation if the House approves it, none will be effective unless it has the benefit of a good judiciary. It is appropriate for the House on this occasion, as it has in the past, to pay tribute to the standard and achievement of Northern Ireland judges. From my own observations, Northern Ireland has splendidly been served by its judiciary. In the background against which Northern Ireland judges work—the difficult, testing, complicated, but also, at times, dangerous environment in which they operate—their dedication, commitment, impartiality and courage are an example to us all.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I echo what my right hon. Friend said about the judiciary. Is he aware that some of us believe that the McGuires and Guiseppe

Conlan may have been wrongly convicted by an English jury and could possibly not have been so convicted by a Diplock court with its superior knowledge of explosives matters?

Mr. King: I note what my hon. Friend said. Obviously, I shall not comment on that matter in any detail, save to say that I have seen that comment made and endorsed in an article in The Irish Times. By implication, that article recognised the real achievements of the courts in Northern Ireland that operate in difficult circumstances and the way in which they seek impartially to administer justice.

Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State referred to the fact that, at a later stage, defendants will have the benefit of a three-judge appeal court. He should confirm the fact that people may have to wait four to five years before they reach that appeal court.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): indicated dissent.

Mr. Mallon: I notice the Minister showing his disagreement. I refer him to the case of Thomas Power. He was on remand for almost four years before he was even sentenced. As yet, he has not reached the Appeal Court. That is an inordinate amount of time. In prison sentence terms, that is more than 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman's point is not valid. If any hon. Member faced serious charges tomorrow without a jury, and he had a choice of being tried by one judge or three judges, which course would he choose?

Mr. King: The first point that the hon. Gentleman raised is an important one. I entirely accept that the Diplock system—the phrase I used was, "taking the Diplock system as a whole"—has important safeguards. In other words, I take together the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal. Of course, an important protection for an accused is that, if he wishes to appeal against the single judge in the court of first instance, he has that automatic right of appeal without qualification—not on some point of law—if he chooses to take his case to the three-judge Court of Appeal. I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman made. Therefore, I have concerns that that right should be available without undue delay. That is an important point. There have been problems about delay. A number of the changes not contained within the legislation, although one or two will impinge on it, are changes in administration and in arrangements that I hope will help to minimise delays. It is a fair comment that that right of appeal should be exercised with reasonable dispatch.
Part I of the Bill gives the amended Act a maximum life of five years, subject to annual renewal. Clause 11 sets the first renewal date at 22 March 1988, to coincide with that of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, which will enable Parliament to consider, at roughly the same time, all the emergency legislation that apples in Northern Ireland and help to consider the Prevention of Terrorism Act in its full United Kingdom context. That was a suggestion of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and I am grateful for it.
Clause 1 shifts the onus in bail applications in scheduled cases from the defence to the prosecution. Clause 2 increases the maximum period for which persons accused of scheduled offences can be remanded in custody without their consent. At present, they can choose to be remanded


for up to 28 days. Most persons accused of scheduled offences and who are remanded in custody have to be produced in court at weekly remand hearings. Sir George Baker pointed out that weekly remand hearings in scheduled cases were an entirely pointless waste of time, money and scarce courtroom resources.
Clause 3 confers on the Lord Chancellor a discretion to direct that a case involving a scheduled offence shall be held at a Crown court other than the Crown court sitting in Belfast. At present, all such cases are held at the Crumlin road courthouse, and this results in some congestion. That is one of the aspects that may help indirectly to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
Clause 4 deals with the admissibility of confession evidence and makes it clear that the threat of violence, as well as violence itself, if used to obtain a statement, can be a basis for declaring that statement inadmissible. Clause 5 effectively terminates the police emergency arrest power, but there are other powers upon which the RUC will be able to rely. They include section 13 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. However, we believe that the power under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in particular is more narrowly focused and subject to closer control by the Executive, and therefore more appropriate.
Clause 5 preserves the police power to enter and search premises for the purpose of arresting a suspected terrorist. Clause 6 illustrates to the House the developments in the technology of terrorism over recent years. Very sophisticated scanning receivers are now available, which can enable terrorists to monitor security force communications, and can be used for the detonation of bombs by remote radio control. We are therefore including specialised receivers of that type in the list of items in respect of which the security forces are entitled to search dwellings and premises, and stop and search vehicles.
Clauses 7 and 9 extend to Northern Ireland provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act that apply only on the mainland. It will thus become an offence in Northern Ireland to arrange or assist in the arrangement or management of a meeting held to support a proscribed organisation, or to behave in a public place in a manner indicative of support for a proscribed organisation.
Clause 8 extends the categories of people about whom it is an offence to collect information likely to be useful to terrorists, and includes all present and former elected representatives in Northern Ireland. Clause 10 reforms the compensation provisions.
Part II contains provisions to put on a statutory basis the right of a person detained under emergency legislation to have someone notified of his arrest and whereabouts and to have access to legal advice.
Part III is a new provision, which sets out a scheme to prevent persons or companies from operating to the benefit of paramilitary organisations under the guise of offering private security guard services. As many hon. Members know, some so-called security firms are no more than a front for paramilitary extortion rackets, and that can provide a significant source of funds for certain paramilitary organisations. To prevent that, I propose a simple certification scheme. Every security firm will need

to possess a certificate to be able to trade lawfully, and such certificates will be issued only to bona fide companies.
Clause 23 requires the existence of reasonable grounds for suspicion where previously the Act required only suspicion as a basis for exercising the powers in question. Clause 24 provides that the provisions of the Bill, like the temporary provisions of the 1978 Act, as amended, should lapse after five years subject to annual renewal.
The House will see from that rapid, but I hope helpful, introduction to the main elements of the Bill that it seeks to make possible the effective pursuit of terrorists and give the forces of law and order the chance to carry out their vital work. At the same time we are maintaining as effectively as we can the rule of law and ensuring that the rights of those who may be accused are protected as fully as possible.
I believe that the Bill, which builds on Lord Diplock's proposals and on the emergency provisions of the 1978 Act, strikes a fair balance between the rights of the individual and seeking to maintain the fairest possible system of justice when we face terrorism. It is our determination to pursue the campaign to eliminate the scourge of terrorism from the beautiful Province of Northern Ireland. We shall maintain our efforts in that respect. We shall seek to do so with the fullest support and commitment of all those in the Province. I believe that in that respect the Bill will be helpful. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: You may find it difficult to believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the House is enjoying a rare experience—indeed, one which I think is unique in the past few years. We have frequently complained that legislation for Northern Ireland is by unamendable orders. The Government present their legislation to the House on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, although we all know that there is not really an option to leave it because the Government Whips are waiting, if called upon, to eliminate that choice.
Today the Government have introduced in the Chamber a Bill—a right-down regular Bill, just like for the rest of the United Kingdom. If it receives its Second Reading, as we all expect it will, we will be able to suggest amendments. I do not know whether there is a connection between the two events, but I note that it has persuaded Members of the Official Unionist party to emulate the commendable example of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), and to attend our proceedings. I hope that they will accept a welcome back to the Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
In debates in the House, the task of a responsible Opposition is more difficult than that of the Government. When a Minister introduces a Bill, it follows that the Government approve of everything in it. It also follows that if anything is missing from the Bill the Government do not approve of it, or they believe that this is the wrong time, or the wrong occasion, or the wrong Bill to bring forward such a provision. Thus the Secretary of State can make an enthusiastic speech commending the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman did today.
Sometimes the task of the Opposition is equally simple. They may regard every sentence in the Bill as a total disaster, and the only approach open to them is


unqualified denunciation. We have seen examples enough of such Bills in the past few years. However, sometimes a Bill is a mixed bag. The Government may have earned some marks for effort. The Bill may bear witness to persistent and effective lobbying on a few selected topics, or even to a capacity among some Ministers to listen to argument, but the gold may be reposing in a deal of dross. The improvements may be few and modest, and the package may include some less attractive items. In that case, the proper response is less simple. We should encourage the Government in well-doing. We on the Opposition Benches have made it clear that when the Government have ears to hear and introduce progressive measures they will meet no unnecessary difficulties from the Opposition, even if we may wish that their response had been earlier and more enthusiastic. We shall not reject the crust because it falls short of a feast.
But we must not leave the Government or anyone else with the impression that that concludes the debate. Where their response is too little in the interests of justice and common sense, we must let it be known that we shall be asking for more. Where the Government have not responded at all, we must give them notice that there are still issues to be resolved. Where the Bill includes measures that we think are wholly misguided, we have to decide whether to oppose the Bill or seek to deal with those measures in Committee.
Let me make it clear at the outset that we shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We will take it as a payment on account, although we may promise the Government an interesting Committee, but that does not mean that our anxieties about the present Act are now resolved simply because it has undergone some improvement. It would be misleading and hypocritical if we supported the continuance order, and when the time comes we shall oppose it.
Our reaction to the Bill is mixed, and if the trumpet is not to give forth an uncertain sound, we must begin from first principles. I shall take this part of the argument fairly briefly. That is possible because we in the Opposition have set it out so often, and it is desirable because, in the House, brevity is a virtue.
We would all like to see an end to the violence and the lawlessness that overshadow the daily life of every family in Northern Ireland—lawlessness from whatever quarter and in whatever cause. We all believe that a peaceful, constitutionally oriented community can be achieved only by peaceful, constitutional politics. Perhaps I shall be permitted a commercial. Hon. Members who are not numbered among the regular readers of Tribune may consider investing in a copy of this week's issue and reading the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).
Even though there will be no complete normality, as the Secretary of State reminded us, until the political issues have been resolved, we all recognise the importance of security, and we all pay tribute to the work of the security services. They shoulder heavy burdens in difficult conditions, and I certainly endorse the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to them. Of course, we too condemn the recent attacks. Sometimes, the security services have to take decisions on the spur of the moment, in conditions of great potential danger, without any opportunity of finding out whether someone is a law-abiding citizen and whether he means mischief. They are entitled to ask that we should take all that into account.
Up to that stage, the Government and the Labour party are largely in agreement. It is at the next phase of the argument that we need to give careful thought to where we are being led. There are two issues. First, if we respond to lawlessness simply by devaluing the law, by abandoning our traditional values and by invoking Satan to cast out Satan, the law breakers will have won, because that is their objective. They will have destroyed the very way of life that it is the purpose of the law to protect. Secondly, as the Secretary of State fairly said, if a substantial number of people in both traditions feel that the law is unfair and is administered oppressively, we shall lose that public support and co-operation of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke and on which the security services depend. Every further derogation from people's rights will make the task of law enforcement more difficult, until measures which are intended to assist in promoting law and order become counter-productive.
I cannot improve on what was said by the predecessor to the Secretary of State, the present Home Secretary, in our debate on this subject on 20 December 1984. He said:
Faced with the tension and the tragedies caused by terrorism, some people, naturally enough, are tempted to look for short cuts in winning the battle. But in a free, open and democratic society such as ours, terrorism is best countered by the resolute application of the criminal law."—[Official Report, 20 December, 1984; Vol. 70, c. 576.]
I am content to say amen to that.
When the original Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill came before the House on 17 April 1973, the Government of the day clearly envisaged that it was an emergency measure. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now Lord Whitelaw, said:
It is the Government's intention that none of the provisions of the Bill, if it is passed, should continue in force a moment longer than it is needed."—[Official Report, 17 April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 278.]
The then Attorney-General—now Lord Rawlinson—called the measures in the Bill "draconian". That is why the Government inserted what is now section 33, providing for a six-monthly review by each House. Since then, the House has discharged that responsibility by looking at the Act twice a year to ascertain whether this emergency legislation really continues to be justified and to consider whether and how it should be amended. I can answer the question of the Secretary of State by saying that I do not propose today to argue that none of the Bill's provisions are necessary, but if that review provision is to be reduced to an annual one, so that 12 months may elapse without a review, that is a further step towards institutionalising what was introduced as emergency legislation.
I appreciate that the quid pro quo is that the provisions of the Bill, if passed, will expire after five years—I welcome that—but I am not persuaded that it is in some way a substitute for the six-monthly reviews in the meantime. These are not, in any sense, alternatives. They are two separate safeguards to deal with two separate dangers. It is true that it was a recommendation by Sir George Baker and that it was intended in some sense as a package, but if the Government seek to urge that, they must have regard to the whole package which he proposed.
In paragraph 448 of his report Sir George recommended that the Secretary of State should provide information, largely statistical, on the working of the Act, and that information should be provided quarterly. This is information of a type which is provided in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act


1984 and which is valuable in assessing how it is operating. As that proposal is in the same chapter of the Baker report as the recommendation for annual reviews, it is clear that Sir George saw that, too, as part of the package; so if I am accused of breaking up Sir George's package, I must point out that the Government have already opened it and discarded a substantial part of the contents.
Applying all these considerations to the Bill, there are provisions which we welcome. We have waited since April 1984, when the Baker report was published, for some action on the recommendations. we have tried to encourage the Government in well doing. Whatever the processes that persuaded them to act, we applaud this outcome.
We welcome Clause 1. It is unacceptable, as Sir George Baker pointed out, that the onus of proving why bail should not be granted pending trial is on the defence, and that anomaly will be reviewed by the Bill.
We welcome the repeal of the powers of arrest without warrant in section 11 of the present Act. Sir George Baker recommended in paragraph 304 that the various powers of arrest lurking in assorted statutes should be brought together in one statutory provision. Clause 5 repeals the power in section 11, leaving the authorities to their other powers of arrest without warrant and, particularly, to section 12 of the prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. We do not take the view that the prevention of terrorism power is beyond criticism, but the repeal of section 11 is clearly a move in the right direction.
More difficult to understand is that section 12 of the present Act is left intact. It empowers the Secretary of State to detain someone without a trial. That is a draconian power, so much so that it has not been used since 1975. Sir George Baker recommended that, since it is not used and ought not to be used, it should be repealed. Indeed, sections 11 and 12 go together. The power of arrest in section 11 was clearly intended to be used as a prelude to detention under section 12, although, in fact, it was frequently used for other purposes. Section 11 is now being repealed, yet section 12 is to remain.
Why do the Government disagree with Sir George Baker and wish to retain a power which has not been used for 11 years and which, I understand, they have no intention of using? I seem to remember the predecessor of the Secretary of State, the present Home Secretary, telling the House on 20 December 1984 that he would like to retain the power in case there was
a sudden short-term crisis, which might occur when Parliament was in recess."—[Official Report, 20 December, 1984; Vol. 70, c. 581.]
I do not believe that that is the proper approach to emergency legislation, which, as the Government recognised, distorts the normal processes of law and requires to be justified as exceptional. It is not good enough to say that the situation does not call for it now, but perhaps one day it will.
I return to the implementation of some of the Baker recommendations which we welcome. We note that schedule 1 substitutes for the word "suspects" in a number of contexts the words
has reasonable grounds for suspecting".

This will enable a court to inquire not only into the subjective state of mind of the officer concerned, but into the objective question whether the suspect's behaviour really was suspicious. That is to be welcomed.
We welcome clause 4, which strengthens the criteria for excluding alleged confessions in scheduled offences. The existing Act makes a statement admissible unless the accused was subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. That leaves statements admissible when they have been obtained by any of a range of pressures. The suspect may have been punched, spat on, made to stand for hours on end, denied sleep, abused or threatened. Sir George Baker recommended that at least the statement should be excluded if the accused was subject to violence or the threat of violence, even if it did not amount to torture. That recommendation is implemented in the Bill and is much to be welcomed.
But can the Government explained what is wrong with the test that operates elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Here, a statement is admissible if, and only if, it is made voluntarily. I have not heard it suggested that the test, as it is applied by the English courts, is too libertarian. If a person is to be convicted of an offence on the evidence of a confession, what matters is that the confession is reliable and that it was made because it was true and not to get out of a police station or to stop some kind of pressure.
In 1978, the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, chaired by Sir Cyril Philips, was established partly because of mounting concern about the way in which some confession statements were obtained. Research carried out by the commission showed that most people incarcerated in a police station, anxious and tense, whether or not they had committed an offence, and questioned for hour after hour when they were desparate to get out, were likely to end by saying almost anything.
Of course, allegations of ill treatment are easy to make and as easy to deny. The court may not believe the allegations, but we are concerned about what is to happen if the court finds as a fact that such treatment has taken place. Is it still to admit the statement? Of what probative value is a confession if it was made for some reason other than its truth? So our welcome for the provision is mingled with regret that the Government did not follow the logic of their own reasoning.
Before I leave the congratulatory part of my remarks, I welcome two provisions which do not follow from the recommendations of Sir George Baker, but which are intended to bring the Northern Ireland position broadly into line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Clause 11 provides a right for a person in custody to have someone told about what has happened so that hours of anxiety for his family can be avoided, and someone can set in train whatever is necessary to safeguard the welfare and rights of the accused.
Clause 12 provides a right of access to legal advice, but again the Government have devalued their own gift. The rights are subject to delay on a whole plethora of different grounds. In Committee we shall wish to explore whether they are all necessary. We know that these provisions will be applied differently, by different officers. There will be some who will seize on whatever excuse presents itself to nullify the right which the Bill seeks to confirm. That is not being critical of the police: like any other collection of human beings, they include the good, the bad and the


passable. It would be as silly to suggest that they are all perfect as it would be to suggest that they are all part of some sinister conspiracy.
But we do not have to postulate any dishonest policemen or even any who prefer their task to be made easy. Let hon. Members imagine a conscientious, hardworking police officer who has before him someone whom he believes to be guilty of an offence. It is easy to understand whey he should want a confession in his hand before the subject sees a lawyer. If he is tempted by being supplied with a long list of exceptions where the right does not apply, he will have to be objective and fair beyond average not to seize on some of those suggestions. We know in this Chamber that that would not necessarily serve the cause of justice, and one does not fight terrorism by convicting the wrong people. Someone may say that we are not at the sharp end and that we do not share the pressures, but that is precisely why we should exercise judgment and not leave it to those who may be too deeply committed to exercise it fairly. We are speaking of a right which Sir Henry Fisher, in his report on the Confait case, regarded as so fundamental that he recommended that any confession obtained in breach of it should be automatically excluded.
Before I leave clauses 11 and 12, I shall ask the Minister a question which I hope he will answer at the end of the debate. These rights are already accorded to the rest of the United Kingdom and they are enshrined in United Kingdom legislation. In Northern Ireland they are being enacted, in a piece of legislation which is expressed to be, and I hope is intended to be, temporary, in order to respond to an emergency situation. They apply only to people arrested under emergency provisions. Is it proposed, at an early date, to re-enact them—I see that the Secretary of State is nodding—in more permanent legislation so that the citizens of Northern Ireland will have them on the same basis and for the same range of purposes as the citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom? I am grateful to the Secretary of State for indicating that that is so. Perhaps at the end of the debate the Minister will tell us the time factor involved.
I turn to some recommendations made by Sir George Baker which do not appear in the Bill. Sir George's report was a careful piece of work, to which we have all paid tribute on other occasions, but it is hardly a piece of radical libertarianism. It could scarcely be suggested that to implement it fully would be to risk a breakdown in law and order. I understand the reasons for that, and I point out only that the Government have not seen fit to implement even all of those modest recommendations.
I have already mentioned the failure to repeal section 12 and Sir George's proposal that information should be made available about the working of the Act. A further recommendation that is missing from the Bill is the proposal to limit remand in custody while awaiting trial to a period of 12 months before committal proceedings. The average period of remand in Northern Ireland is 15 months. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed to the Power case, where remand has been substantially longer than that. In some cases other than the Power case, remand has been up to two years. Allowing for all the rules governing remission, the accused will have served the equivalent of a four-year sentence before it has been decided whether he is guilty.
Sir George Baker said:
I find it impossible to conclude that there is no injustice.

His recommendation was modest enough. He suggested that anyone held in custody for 12 months before committal should be released. If, by that time, someone has not even been committed and he is likely to face a further period in custody before he is tried, he has, by any standard, some reason for complaint.
Scotland seems to find no difficulty in living with a limitation period of 110 days after committal and an overall period of 124 days. On 20 October 1985 the Home Secretary announced to the House a series of what he called "field trials" in several English towns to see how time limits could work in England. Why, then, should there be no limitation period in Northern Ireland?
The long remands are a feature, in particular, of supergrass trials, which are a development within the Diplock procedure which was never envisaged when the Act was passed in 1973. In Committee we shall want to explore the whole of that development. Indeed, one of the most controversial matters in the Act is the existence and extent of the Diplock procedure. We have often debated the reasons why, in 1973, the Government of the day decided to remove the right to jury trial for a wide range of offences, and what evidence exists about that now. I do not propose to rehearse all that, other than to remind the House that trial by jury is a very important part of our criminal procedure. It subjects lawyers, as experts everywhere should be subjected, to an element of constraint by those whose function it is to represent common sense and an uncomplicated commitment to fair play.
We on this side of the water would not lightly relinquish that entitlement, but we are prepared to countenance a different standard in Northern Ireland. That is not intended to reflect any discredit on the Northern Ireland judiciary. Indeed, I echo the tribute paid to it by the Secretary of State, but I am troubled about the burden that we cast on it, which is not borne by judges who sit with juries.
The offences in the schedule are defined by categories and not by any observable connection with terrorism in a particular case. One of those offences, for example, is armed robbery. It is true that paramilitaries sometimes commit armed robberies, but it is certainly not the case that all armed robbers are paramilitaries. Moreover, we are all familiar with the research of Mr. Dermot Walsh, which showed that 40 per cent. of those convicted in the Diplock courts had no observable connection with terrorism.
Most of those who have given thought to the question would like more cases to be channelled back into the normal jury system. I thought that I detected an assent to that in what the Secretary of State said. Several suggestions have been made about how that might be achieved. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights suggested two steps. It proposed removing a number of offences from the schedule altogether, because experience shows that, even assuming the other steps in the argument, they are not needed, and it proposed enlarging the number of offences in which the Attorney-General is empowered to certify a specific case out of the Diplock procedure. That is a proposal which commended itself to Sir George Baker, and he listed the offences that he had in mind.
In the amendment order of 1985, the Government introduced a measure empowering the Attorney-General to certify out offences of kidnapping, false imprisonment


and certain other offences. We welcomed that order as spring watchers welcome the first snowdrop, but it missed the real point. The National Council for Civil Liberties illuminated the figure of 40 per cent., given by Mr. Dermot Walsh as the proportion of convictions under the Diplock procedure which appear to have had no connection with terrorism. It transpired that the majority were offences involving real or imitation firearms—that is to say robbery, aggravated burglary and the possession of firearms while committing a variety of offences.
Those are serious offences, but if in any specific case they are not connected with terrorism, the argument for the Diplock procedure disappears. In the absence of the paramilitary element, the fact that an offence is a serious offence, involving the prospect of a long sentence, reinforces the importance of having a jury trial. Sir George Baker's proposal was not that these categories should be removed from the schedule but only that the Attorney-General should have power to certify out in appropriate cases. However, the Government's measure in 1985 did not extend to the offences through which the problem arises, and the Bill does not seek to remedy the defects.
As the Secretary of State said, there have been other suggestions for moving towards a solution of the problem, for example the three-judge court to replace the single judge. We have in mind Sir George's proposals in paragraph 151 for contingent jury trial. There have been proposals by Mr. Stephen Greer and Mr. Anthony White in their thoughtful book on the subject. This is not the occasion to discuss in detail the merits of all the proposals, but it is hoped that in Committee we will demonstrate one of the advantages of legislating by Bill rather than by order. It is that it provides an opportunity to discuss thoughtful suggestions that are all too often lost because there is no opportunity for ventilating them.
The House may be relieved to hear that I do not propose today to comment on every provision in the Bill, nor to list all the matters which are missing from the Bill that we would like to have seen dealt with there. I have no doubt that someone, inside or outside the House, will profess shocked surprise that in the whole of this speech—perhaps in the whole of the debate—there has been not a single mention of some matter which is of great importance to someone. However, there will be opportunities in Committee.
I am looking forward to the Committee, whether it takes place here or upstairs, or partly here and partly upstairs. It will provide an opportunity to discuss many matters relating to security and civil liberties. No one can refuse to take part in a Standing Committee on the ground that it was brought into existence by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Participation will not entail either an affirmation or a rejection of the agreement. All those who have painted themselves into corners where they cannot take part in a dialogue except on conditions that someone else cannot accept can come to the Committee without loss of dignity or principle.
I hope that the Government and their business managers will have two things in mind. First, I hope that there will be room in the Committee for representatives from every part of the House so that they may all take part in at least one important discussion. I hope that the Ministers will come to the Committee with open minds and listen to suggestions and arguments. We shall not

resolve every disagreement, but if it is a constructive Committee, those who practise the politics of abstention will see things happening in their absence, and they may consider that they would do better to attend to represent those who sent them to the House.
Who knows, the Government may acquire a taste for legislation by Bill, and we may all come to appreciate the advantages of discussing things, of give and take, of seeking a consensus. That may prove to be a step towards resolving the political differences which gave rise to the security problems in the first place and towards restoring that constitutional process which will end all talk of an emergency.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will forgive me if I do not follow him, but I do not possess his forensic skills, so find myself in difficulties in commenting on the legislative points that he brought out in his interesting speech.
When he was introducing the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which was updated by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which in turn is amended by the Bill before the House, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, said:
The onus must be on Her Majesty's Government to prove to the House why the special legal provisions in the Bill are necessary in the current situation in Northern Ireland. We here have a clear responsibility to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and for the security forces who are protecting them.
Terrorism still constitutes a major threat to peace and order in Northern Ireland; a threat which, if it is allowed to go unchecked, will jeopardise all efforts to bring about peaceful political progress.
In the same speech—the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West has already quoted his words—he said:
The Bill therefore provides that none of the main provisions should last for more than a year without an order being made that would have to be approved by Parliament. I believe such a procedure to be an assurance in itself that, given a cessation of violence for political ends in Northern Ireland, the Government will be only too glad to see these provisions brought to an end."—[Official Report, 17 April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 275–8.]
Those words were spoken more than 13 years ago, and while we have seen considerable improvement in the internal security of the Province, the terrorism that produced the Acts of Parliament to which I have referred continues, to a point where today's legislation, albeit a refinement of the 1973 and 1978 Acts, is an obvious necessity. What is more, the "peaceful political progress" referred to by my noble Friend is not just as far away as it was in 1973, or 1978, but in some respects even further away. Not only are we facing the continued menace of the terrorist, the gunman and the bomber in their attempts to destabilise the Province, as today's bombing in Belfast underlines, but we are obliged to survey the wreckage of the political initiatives of 1974 and 1982, with their attempts to create devolved government. There is also the failure of the Northern Ireland Convention and now the uncertain start to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
To some extent, each of these initiatives has contributed to the instability in the Province and thus to the environment in which the terrorists thrive. I make that statement because it seems relevant to the Bill before us.


As the late Sir George Baker asked in his report, is this legislation not based on a misnomer if it is described as an emergency provisions Bill, when the emergency has lasted 17 years, and the definition of an emergency is "a sudden or unexpected occurrence"?
I prefer his suggestion that the legislation should be called the Protection of the Peoples Bill, because it frees us from the unreality of believing that we are likely to see the end of this legislation within the five years written into the Bill and that if we get rid of the terrorist, "peaceful political progress" will automatically follow. That is not necessarily a consequence of getting rid of the terrorist, and until we recognise that we have two problems to resolve, both of which to some extent create instability in the Province, we do not come to the root of the problem. I see a certain contradiction in an emergency provisions Bill which is to be renewed annually rather than every six months as is the case now.
Someone in the Northern Ireland Department seems to to be agreeing with my assessment of the likely duration of the present situation, as well they may, for the Provos and INLA publicly state their determination to continue their campaign of violence indefinitely. Judging by the figures for the past year, the first year of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we have still some way to go to prove that the security situation has radically changed as a result of the new arrangements with the Republic of Ireland.
I have before me figures given to me by the Library on 15 December. I see that in the 12 months till 4 December 1986, there were 60 deaths, and in the 12 months ending October 1985, there were 54 deaths. There were 282 deaths through shootings in the 12 months to November 1986 and 197 in the 12 months ending October 1985. There were 237 deaths as a result of bombings in the 12 months ending November 1986 and 201 in the 12 months ending October 1985. Whatever we may hope to get from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we have to admit that, for the moment at least, there is no proof that it is producing better security in the Province. As a result, I suggest that one of the premises on which the Bill is based is flawed. It should be regarded not as something transitory but as something semi-permanent while normal democratic procedures cease to exist or are positively spurned and derided by a section of the community.
On page 4 of his review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provision) Act 1978, which forms the basis of the Bill, the late Sir George Baker wrote:
the political process has no real chance of developing until terrorism is eliminated but terrorism cannot be eliminated until there is a political solution.
Those are wise words—even more so today than when they were written in 1984, because the situation in the Province has entered a new phase with the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement a year ago.
The Bill must now be judged against the new circumstances that prevail in the Province. A section of the community has taken up arms against the Government and a large part of the population feel left out of the political process, not because they refuse to recognise this Parliament as their Parliament but because, in its search for peace, stability and reconciliation, Parliament has chosen to ignore their entreaties.
I suggest that we have an infinitely more dangerous situation than we had even in 1973 or 1978, and until we

have resolved the political centre of that new problem, we will not get anywhere near making the provisions the emergency ones that we claim them to be.
In 1973 and 1978, Northern Ireland Members of Parliament from Unionist and other parties came to the House and, until one year ago, attended the Northern Ireland Assembly. They played their part in the governance of their Province. Now we see an alienation from Parliament of most of their representatives, with the exception of the four hon. Members who are sitting on the other side of the House.
If this Bill, or any other relating to the Province, is to be accepted and made workable, it must be debated and accepted by the parliamentary representatives of all of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I am convinced that, however well intentioned the Anglo-Irish Agreement may be, it is a stumbling block to peace and better relationships between the communities in the North and, dare I say it, between the two parts of Ireland, because it undermines the basis on which the people of Northern Ireland are governed and accept the laws that we make for them.
If the agreement is to remain, it must follow that leaders of the three main political parties in Northern Ireland should be included in the intergovernmental conference. Only by doing that can the people of Northern Ireland feel that their elected representatives are having a say in whatever is discussed about their Province and its security.
Fortunately, the changes from the 1978 Act which are encompassed in the Bill would not in their generality seem likely to create much hostility to the Bill in the Province, and I suspect that many of the amended parts of the Bill will make the new Act a better piece of legislation than anything which has gone before.
I should like to refer to one important addition to the Bill—the section about security companies—and to one omission from the Baker report—a new definition of the proscription of political organisations. I welcome the intention to bring security companies in the Province under some form of legislative restraint, bearing in mind the work that they carry out.
It is right to create certain criteria for the establishment of such companies and to ensure, as far as one can, that those who work for them are bona fide employees. That suggests to me that, of necessity, the police will be asked to give personal details about people who are being considered for employment. Otherwise, I do not see how the conditions in clause 16 can be met in any meaningful way.
When, in the past, there has been talk of statutory controls on security companies on this side of the Irish sea, it has always been asked whether it is reasonable for people who run security companies to seek from the police the potential employee's personal file to discover whether he has been involved in crime. It has usually been argued that making such information available would infringe the civil liberties of the individual.
I recognise that, in Northern Ireland, we are dealing with different circumstances, but if we are anxious to bring the law of Northern Ireland and that in the rest of the United Kingdom into line, if the Bill allows the Secretary of State to expect of an employer that he has been to the police to check out his prospective employee in Northern Ireland, I find it extremely difficult to see any reason why we should not do the same on this side of the Irish sea. I believe that that would be a step forward in the security


industry. I am aware that we are concerned with paramilitaries in Northern Ireland but, bearing in mind the amount of violence that is to be found generally today, it would be helpful if everybody who ran a security company could vouch for his employees as persons of absolutely honourable and honest character.
Finally, I want to consider proscription. Sir George Baker went to some trouble to discuss proscribing Sinn Fein and the Ulster Defence Associaton. He made it clear that, despite the arguments that can be used for proscription, he did not feel able to make a recommendation. In paragraph 424, however, he refers to a suggestion made to him by Professor Wilkinson of Aberdeen university, an international authority on terrorism, who suggested that political parties which refuse to renounce violence should be disqualified by statute from parliamentary and other elections. I think that that is an excellent suggestion and I am sorry that it has not been included in the Bill.
It seems natural justice to argue that those who think that they can pursue their political ends with the ballot paper in one hand and an Armalite in the other should be made to decide which option they intend to pursue. I do not believe that the political process is helped by the present equivocation, and I can see no reason why Professor Wilkinson's suggestion should not be written into the Bill in Committee or on Report. His suggestion for what would in effect add up to a description of that which would proscribe an organisation would bear most careful consideration by the House.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I know that when I speak about the Bill I speak against a background of great violence and threats of violence in Northern Ireland. I appreciate the difficulty of speaking about a humane and compassionate regime or process of law in the face of such problems, but, unfortunately, that is the minefield through which we have to tread.
I remind the Minister of State, whom I am glad to see present, of his perceptive and accurate remarks in Munich when he spoke recently about security and terrorism. He said:
Democracies should seek to derogate as little as possible from the standards of justice and Government which would normally apply".
I agree, and take these words as a touchstone against which the Bill should be judged. Unfortunately, the Minister's task is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Amending legislation such as the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 is, one could argue, impossible. It is somewhat like writing a travelogue for Siberia. No matter how well the photographs look, how glossy the presentation is or how well scripted it is, Siberia will remain Siberia, unchanged and unchangeable. This is akin to that.
I note the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) in relation to this measure being a Bill. But is it in essence a Bill, or is it amendments to existing legislation? Making that distinction presents difficulties for me and, I presume, for many others. If those changes were to stand of themselves I would be pleased to varying degrees about them, but the fact that they are changes to repressive legislation causes

me great problems. I have difficulty deciding whether we have lamb, or mutton dressed up as lamb. Perhaps that may be teased out in Committee. I seek the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. That should be our objective and every step taken should work towards it.
In his speech in Munich the Minister also said:
Repressive policies, without regard to moderation, civilisation and restraint could actually feed terrorism.
How right he is. He put his finger on the classic Northern Irish dilemma. Since 1922, when the state was formed, there has never been a period when we did not have derogation from the normal standards of justice. We have always had emergency repressive legislation. That has given a potent propaganda weapon to the men of violence, which they have used successfully, and it has alienated large sections of the community, especially young people. As a result, confidence in and respect for the law has diminished to a frightening degree.
To paraphase the Minister's words again, to what extent has terrorism fed off this repressive legislation and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act during the past 16 years? How much has that legislation encouraged people to resort to violence? Will these changes help to win the battle for the hearts and minds of people to support a proper system of justice and a proper impartial system of law? That is the battle that must be won. If these changes can help us move in that direction, they are of themselves good.
Unfortunately, the tone of the Bill—I shall call it a Bill until I seek and get further clarification—is set by the failure to remove from it the power of internment. It gives an insight into Government thinking and signposts their fundamental attitude, which could read—I hope that they do not find this too harsh—"Amend some peripheral matters, take a small step forward in others, but do not ever get to the heart of the problem." Later I hope to show where the Bill has avoided getting to the heart of the problem.
Internment without trial is the most serious derogation in any democratic society. We have had it in Northern Ireland every decade since 1922, but it has never defeated violence. It simply fuels it, recruits for it and passes on the ethic and subculture of violence to future generations. It should never be used again. The retention of this power is essentially a vote of no confidence in the future and a clear negation of the Minister's perceptive conclusions about repressive policies. I regret that internment has not been removed from the statute book once and for all.
Some of the Bill presents a small step forward, but other parts are scratching the surface. There is one other glaring, regrettable omission, and that is any change, or sign of change, in the Diplock court system. That omission is like a cloud hanging over the Bill, casting a shadow on provisions which may be worth while and questioning the Government's will to get to the heart of the matter.
I noted that the Secretary of State said that the Government were not "presently" persuaded about the need for change in the Diplock system. I take some heart from that and look forward in future to finding out what the word "presently" means. If those changes are not made, some good provisions in the Bill will lose their impact and conviction.
There is an overwhelming need to change the Diplock system by introducing a three-judge collegiate system. It is not merely a question of obtaining a better system of


justice; nor is it a question of doubting the attitudes or abilities of individual judges. Rather it is that it would be seen publicly as a fairer system of trial, given that juries have had to be removed. The Government-appointed Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights stated:
The wider interest of the administration of justice would be better served if there was a system of trial which inspired greater public confidence than the present method.
Of overriding importance is the ultimate protection of the accused. The judicial process is not merely for lawyers, but for lay people also. The judiciary is the final arbiter—the only agency standing between you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, me, all of us, and a prison cell. When Parliament removed the protection of the jury from us as individuals, it had a right to try to replace it, but it has not done that. The only system that goes some way towards doing that is the introduction of a three-judge collegiate system.
I keep asking a simple question of myself: if I had to face serious charges tomorrow without a jury and I had the choice between being tried by three judges or one, what choice would I make? I have no doubt what my answer would be. I would have much greater faith in the experience, wisdom and judgment of three judges acting together than in the experience, wisdom and judgment of one man. Those accused of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland have a right to that protection, and the community has a right to a system in which it can have confidence and to which it can give full support.
The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights stated:
The introduction of three judge courts is one of the amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which could be made without reducing the effectiveness of the legislation but which nonetheless might lead to a wider acceptability of a system which inevitably has to derogate from the ordinary principles on which criminal justice is administered.
I am afraid that the Government have fluffed it. It is a sorry mistake that the introduction of a collegiate trial system is not included in the Bill. That will cast a cloud on some of the improvements in the Bill
I welcome some changes as a small step forward, but they do not bridge the derogation gap. Section 2 of the 1978 Act will be amended to give judges wider discretion in granting bail. I welcome that and commend the Minister for it. It will bring the law into line with the judges' practice and go some way towards eliminating the suspicion that often a refusal to grant bail has been used as a form of internment. However, it would be much better if there were a statutory presumption in favour of bail.
The Bail Act 1976, which applies to England and Wales, states:
A person shall be granted bail unless,
whereas this Bill states:
A judge may, in his discretion, admit to bail".
Reading that as a layman, I understand it to mean that the judge still has a residual discretion to reject bail even after the prosecution has failed to show why it should not be granted. That is a fundamental weakness. We must reconsider that point and try to apply the same conditions as apply in England and Wales.
The changes in the Bill in relation to the admissibility of evidence are also a step in the right direction. Under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 as it stands, the present grounds for non-admissibility are a bare minimum compared with article 3 of the European convention on human rights, under which
no one shall be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
That lowest minimum or lowest common denomination factor has led to problems. It has been iniquitous, open to abuse and the rule of the lowest common denominator. It has been a temptation for interrogating officers, because they have always felt that the law was on their side, that there was a sufficient gap, and that if only they took a little step further they might obtain the confession.
That lowest common denominator has been, and is still, a corrosive influence on the whole process of justice. Indeed, it might act as an encouragement to interrogators to treat an accused person in somewhat less than the way in which he should expect to be treated. I believe that the proposal should go further. I welcome the fact that it now includes the threat of violence and not just actual violence. Clause 4 also gives the judge the power to exclude statements or evidence on the ground that not to do so would be unfair to the accused or contrary to the interests of justice. That is a strengthening of the power to make dubious evidence non-admissible. That is a step forward and I welcome it. However, it should go further and exclude all statements obtained by any threat, inducement or oppressive treatment.
Changes are also proposed to sections 11 and 12 of the 1978 Act. I welcome those changes. Since 1922 an unqualified suspicion has been the only requirement for search, seizure and arrest. Is it any wonder that a member of the South African Government is on record as envying those draconian powers? For the past 65 years in the North of Ireland, anyone's house could be searched, anyone could have property seized and a person could be seized under arrest simply on the suspicion of an officer of the police or the Army. That is now to be changed to reasonable suspicion.
That may not seem a very substantial step forward. However, the legal people believe that it is. If I may make the distinction in the words of Sir George Baker:
The test for Section 11 is a subjective one: Did the arrestor suspect? If his suspicion is an honest genuine suspicion that the person being arrested is a terrorist, a court cannot inquire further into the exercise of the powers. But where the requirement is reasonable suspicion it is for the court to decide the reasonableness of the suspicion. It is an objective standard.
That surely must be an advance on the situation that pertained until now, and at least it removes the unfettered form of arrest from the arresting officer. I commend that change and it is long overdue. However, I do not think that it goes far enough, because section 18 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 has not been touched. There may be a legal provision for that which I cannot find.
I recognise that schedule 1 to the Bill restricts the powers of arrest of the Army or UDR personnel. However, section 18 of the 1978 Act—the power to stop, search and interrogate people on the streets on an almost unlimited basis—does not appear to have been changed at all. This is one of the great bones of contention in the North of Ireland—and I know that the Minister knows that it is one of the great bones of contention—and it is one of the main alienating factors.
While we are making this series of changes and amending what we know to be an unsatisfactory piece of legislation, we leave section 18 untouched. In other words, we give to an 18-year-old private or to a UDR person who


may not be well disposed to the person with whom he is dealing — a power which we do not even give to the Chief Constable of the RUC. This is ludicrous and should be changed, in the interests of young people and those who are being alienated in the clash between the security forces and the paramilitary groups. Young people are suffering under section 18 of the 1978 Act. They are being squeezed and alienated into the arms of the men of violence. We must do something about section 18.
Clause 12 is a slight improvement. I do not consider this in the way others have considered it, because I believe that the seven-day detention period is much too long. Any officer of the law would say that the vast majority of cases are made to stick within the first 12 to 14 hours. Detention from five to seven days is not required. The whole of this clause should be re-thought, because there is a practice at present—which no one would deny—of detention for up to 72 hours or for seven days, literally for the purpose of information gathering rather than on suspicion — not even reasonable suspicion—of that person's involvement.
I deal with such problems almost on a daily basis, and I dealt with six such problems last week. I know the difficulties that it causes for people, their families and for the areas in which they live. However, I recognise that there are occasions when someone is involved in a serious crime and there must be a provision whereby that person can be properly interviewed. However, there must be cast-iron guarantees against having information gathering used under the guise of detention. There can be no justification for removing any man' or woman's freedom for one hour, 48 hours, 72 hours or seven days, simply to fit together the pieces of a jigsaw about an event or a crime which that person was not a part of but which he may have witnessed as he was in the vicinity and about which he may be able to provide information.
The authority placed in the hands of the police not to inform relatives within 48 hours or to obtain a solicitor for the person being held is wide open to abuse. I can understand the position of a policeman who believes that if he does not inform a person's relatives or provide a solicitor he can obtain information, but we are placing a serious temptation before that policeman. We will condemn it when abuses take place, but at the end of the day it is our responsibility to provide the legislation within which the police officer can work safely. I cannot see any circumstances where that will not be seriously abused, and that provision must be reconsidered in great detail during further discussion in Committee.
I should like to consider the provisions in relation to the so-called security firms. I give these provisions the warmest possible welcome. It is tragic to witness the way in which paramilitary groups, be they loyalist or republican, or whatever they care to call themselves, have abused the position. They have put small firms out of business and have hived off millions of pounds worth of public funds, ordinary people's money and mine, into their organisations through these so-called security firms. They have put thousands of people out of work by their demands and threats. I welcome the provisions to deal with them and suggest that they should be stringently enforced, because these firms are a blight on the face of Northern Ireland and should be removed as quickly as possible.
Another section of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 deals with the power arbitrarily to take over a person's land or property. Nothing rankles or annoys people more than to wake up some fine morning to see other people in possession of what one owns, be it land or one's house. There must be some provisions where at least people will be told that that terrible thing is going to happen, so that they can bring their solicitor in and make provisions for compensation and where, at least, they can bring in their assessor.
I refer the Minister of State to problems which he knows I have and to others which he has in relation to what has happened in parts of south Armagh. I do not think that any Government should have the unfettered power to take what does not belong to them in such an arbitary way without making any provision for the rights of individuals.
I do not know what my views will be at the end of the discussions on this piece of legislation. I do not know whether I will regard it as a Bill or as an indication of the Government's future thinking. I do not know whether I shall regard it as a set of changes or as a way of trying to dress up mutton to look like lamb. I hope that the changes suggested will improve the situation, both for the individual and for the community in the North of Ireland. I hope that in Committee we can get some of the provisions changed radically. I hope that we can look at the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and deal with the omissions. I hope, too, that at that stage of the Bill we will be able to get to grips with some of the problems which I have tried to identify.

Mr. Ian Gow: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you seek evidence for the truth of the proposition that the subject of Northern Ireland does not excite the keen interest of the House of Commons you have only to note that, with the distinguished exception of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), there has not been any Back Bench Member of the Labour party present during the debate. I hope that the—

Mr. Archer: In fairness, the hon. Gentleman would add that there are six Back Bench Members of the Conservative party present.

Mr. Gow: Six is a considerably higher proportion than one
I hope that the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) will not think that it is in any way presumptuous or patronising, because it is certainly expected to be neither, to say that I for one, and I think that I speak for many of my hon. Friends, very much welcome their presence in the Chamber. Ever since 15 November 1985 I have believed that those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies in the interests of the Ulster Unionist party, should bring their fight, which is my fight, against the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the Floor of the House. I believe that the best interests of the Union and the Ulster Unionist party will be served by them being the most active of the parliamentary activists and I believe that the justified complaint that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland have against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, could and should be expressed most forcefully and continuously on the Floor of the House.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the kindly welcome and I acknowledge that it is not patronising. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 15 November. Does he share my feeling about the fact that that was the anniversary on which my predecessor, Rev. Robert Bradford, was murdered by the enemies of this nation in the performance of his duty and that it was on that day in a subsequent year that the great betrayal was perpetrated on our people? Today, I am in the House when south Belfast has again suffered lamentably, to my mind, at the hands of the enemies of the nation. This Bill deals with that and I would like to think that the Government would be explicit in performing their duties to defend the people of south Belfast and Ulster.

Mr. Gow: The predecessor of the hon. Gentleman was a friend of many of us in the House. We have the most respectful memories of him. Everyone who has heard what the hon. Gentleman has just said will understand the reasons that prompted him to say it.
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the intergovernmental conference and to the representations that have been made by Ministers in the Irish Republic about the administration of justice in one part of this kingdom. My right hon. Friend did not remind the House, but I shall, of the provisions of article 8 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is headed:
Legal matters, including the administration of justice.
I want to remind the House of two sentences that state:
The two Governments agree on the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice. The Conference shall seek, with the help of advice from experts as appropriate, measures which would give substantial expression to this aim, considering inter alia the possibility of mixed courts in both jurisdictions for the trial of certain offences.
My right hon. Friend told the House that the Government have decided not to accede to the representations that have been made by Ministers of a foreign power—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: At present.

Mr. Gow: I shall deal with the point made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I too, noted and wrote down the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Like the right hon. Member for South Down I intend to be vigilant about the words that fall from the lips of my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend referred to the refusal of the Government, at any rate at this stage, to accede to the requests made by Ministers from the Irish Republic about the composition of courts in that part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend did not confirm but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will when he replies, that no further discussions are taking place at meetings of the intergovernmental conference at ministerial level and that no discussions are taking place among the secretariat or elsewhere on the really preposterous suggestion that there should be mixed courts in both jurisdictions for the trial of certain offences. Any such proposal would be deeply resented by the judiciary and that is something of which my hon. Friend must be well aware.
I shall now turn to the words that I wrote down. The Official Report will tell us tomorrow whether I wrote them down correctly. My right hon. Friend said:
We are not presently persuaded that there should be three judges in the Diplock courts rather than one.

He said, "not presently persuaded." I wish to ask my hon. friend the Minister what new factors there could be that would lead the Government to a conclusion different from that they have reached already.
We all know what was behind the suggestion put forward by the Irish Government. The suggestion was not simply that there should be three judges instead of one, but was that one of those judges should be a Roman Catholic. I certainly hope that the appointment of judges to the bench will not depend on whether they are Roman Catholic or Protestant. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it crystal clear that the criteria for appointing those to the bench, whether it is the High Court of the court of appeal, will rest solely on their suitability to act as judges.
The speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was deeply critical of my right on. Friend's decision, which I support, although I do not like his use of the word "presently" and seek clarification of its use. I am wondering whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has studied the excellent report of Sir George Baker and whether he has noticed that in paragraph 119 on page 35 of that report Sir George said:
The single judge in Northern Ireland always writes his judgment and gives his reasons, stating the law as he has applied it to the facts that he has found.
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be possible to have a three-judge court in Northern Ireland with, say a majority of two in favour of a conviction and one against, or the other way round? Separate judgments would have to be written by each judge, the very point to which Sir George Baker addressed his mind. He asked:
Are there to be three judgments from which it will be obvious that there has been some disagreement, or only one? Two judges would have to be unanimous for a guilty verdict but what of three? Suppose two consider there is a prima facie case or that a statement is admissible, the third does not: what then?
On the grounds of jurisprudence and of justice, there is no reason for the Government to weaken the decision that they and their advisers have consistently taken. We must never yield to political pressure, notably political pressure from foreign Governments about how to fashion our own system of justice.
Sir George Baker's report is most compelling. In the same paragraph he said:
Of one thing I am certain: in Northern Ireland a plural court be it with judges or assessors would be subject to as much if not more criticism than the trial by judge alone. No judge is in favour as far as I am aware and most counsel and other colleagues with whom I have spoken are against. One has described any such change as 'a recipe for disaster'.
When my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate I hope that he will endorse Sir George Baker's words. I hope that he will explain exactly what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meant when he said that the Government "are not presently persuaded" of the wisdom to move to three judges at the request of the Government of the Irish Republic.
My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to the intergovernmental conference at ministerial level. I hope that when he replies to the debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with article 7 of the joint communiqué that was issued immediately after the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
My hon. Friend is well aware that the Taoiseach has said that it is the intention of his Government to accede as soon as possible to the European convention on the


suppression of terrorism. Yesterday marked the expiration of the 13th month since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. What do the words "as soon as possible" mean?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that legislation is now before the Irish Parliament on this subject. However, to repeat a question that I have asked my right hon. Friend on previous occasions; does he expect that legislation to reach the statute book? That is an essential precondition if the Republic of Ireland is to accede to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. My right hon. Friend also knows that the Government of the Irish Republic have sought to link three judges in the Diplock courts to the Irish Government's accession to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. I fear that that will be the peg upon which the Irish Government will seek to hang their refusal to accede to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. I believe that my right hon. Friend has rightly resisted the Irish Government's attempt to secure three judges instead of one in the Diplock courts.
Many months ago I predicted—although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disagreed with me—that the Republic of Ireland would not ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism during 1986. There is another fortnight to go before my prediction, with which my right hon. Friend disagrees, comes true.
I do not say that the Bill is incapable of improvement. I believe that it can be, and that it will be, improved. I hope very much that I shall have the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee that is to consider the Bill. Should there be a Division tonight I shall vote in favour of it. I look forward to the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is over 12 months since I was estranged from the House because of the behaviour towards me of those who govern Northern Ireland, namely, those who occupy the Northern Ireland Office. Despite the sincere comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I am in no way reconciled.
This debate has followed much the same pattern as previous debates since I entered Parliament in 1983. The Secretary of State's presentation of the Bill did not reassure me. He was quick to climb on the backs of the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces. He tried to engender goodwill by paying compliments to them. If his comments were sincere, the Secretary of State would not have allowed one of his senior officials, Mr. Brian Blackwell, to try to bring political pressure to bear on senior members of the RUC.
The Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir John Hermon, has always asserted that his force is free of political interference, that it is bound only by the law and that he would not tolerate it otherwise. Yet the Secretary of State permitted a senior official in the Northern Ireland Office to encourage and to try to place an onus on an assistant chief constable to enter into some sort of political liaison in order to defeat the intention of the majority of the community in the Province.
The Secretary of State allowed that to happen, but he also created or helped to create circumstances in which that professional police force which he has mentioned and for which I have great respect could not carry out its duties as it wished. In my constituency, policemen are constantly having to withdraw from the area where they live because the resources—the resources of the law which we are debating tonight—are inadequate to deal with terrorism. During the past few days, two more policemen have had to move house because of the threat of IRA terrorism. They moved because of terrorism from the people for whom the Secretary of State tonight used the euphemism "gentlemen" and then tried to explain it away by saying, "Of course, they are innocent until they are proved guilty."
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is sitting beside the Secretary of State, was very quick during the riots, which I deplore and condemn, to label those who participated as thugs. They were thugs. I called them thugs, but I have a right to call them thugs. Those who have indulged in political thuggery in the Northern Ireland Office use that term with less justification. They use such a term about one group of people and then use the euphemism "gentlemen" for the terrorists who continue to kill the citizens of Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has a political system of which I am no part, nor am I permitted to be a part. Those professional policemen, whom the Secretary of State mentioned tonight, must now, if they hope to gain promotion, give a political opinion about their attitude to the Anglo-Irish diktat. The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends do the members of the RUC little justice in the way they treat them.
Of course, the Secretary of State is not alone. His co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which sits from time to time behind barbed wire in Stormont Castle, was induced on 13 November to suggest that members of the Roman Catholic community should join the RUC. Immediately, members of the party of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) were quick to refute that advice. The chairman of the SDLP, the party's spokesman on legal affairs, the party leader and, indeed, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh all suggested that it was not yet time for the Roman Catholic community to join the RUC. We did not hear the Secretary of State allude to that this evening, nor did we hear him allude to the declaration of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on 3 December 1985:
we are not going to have during the rest of this century a situation in Nationalist areas where there will be support for the RUC.

Mr. Mallon: Perhaps the Minister of State will confirm when he replies that in the North of Ireland only two parties have no truck whatsoever with paramilitary groupings, do not join them in marches on the streets, have no association with those political parties which form armies almost on a monthly basis, have not caused any trouble whatsoever for the RUC through street demonstrations and have not attacked the police on the street during the summer as members of the party of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone have done. They have not been a party to the sort of ethics which has resulted in RUC men being burned out of their houses.
We should confirm that there are only two parties in the north of Ireland which fall into that category. I have the honour of belonging to one of them — the SDLP. The


other is the Alliance party. I look forward to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) stating his party position and explaining to the House, seeing that he has raised this matter, how he can justify his association with people who run and organise paramilitary armies in marches on the streets in public, and who associate with someone like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who forms armies every time anything happens in the North of Ireland.
Could I ask him to justify—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Mallon: I thank you for your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should just like to finish—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Maginnis.

Mr. Maginnis: I shall have considerable difficulty answering the speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. It is misleading the House for him to suggest that his party knows nothing about street politics. His party was born on the streets. His party has successfully over the years managed to ride on the back of violence which was more intense than mere street violence. He has of course notably failed to answer the point that he and his party will support the minority Roman Catholic community joining the RUC.

Mr. Mallon: If the hon. Gentleman will give way, I will certainly do that.

Mr. Maginnis: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Mallon: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman cannot attack me on the one hand for not answering his point and on the other hand not give way for me to do so. Our party position is very clear. We support the police in impartially enforcing the law. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting for one moment that we should support any police service that partially enforces the law?

Mr. Maginnis: I am constantly told that the best way to put anything right, is from the inside. The hon. Gentleman has not answered his assertion that during the rest of this century there will not be support for the RUC in nationalist areas. However, I rest my case there.
The Bill is intended to provide better justice for the people of Northern Ireland—better justice in the face of terrorism, the facts of which are often misrepresented and on which the House has been misled by none other than the Secretary of State as recently as 23 October. On that occasion the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asked the Secretary of State if he would confirm that of 37 people who were not members of the security forces or the provisional IRA and who were killed in the period since the signing of the Anglo-Irish diktat, the majority were killed by loyalist paramilitary groupings. The Secretary of State replied that he could confirm those figures. That was misleading to the House.
During that period, there were 56 terrorist murders and 28 of those were civilians, to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was alluding, not 37. Of the 28 who were killed, 16 had been killed by Roman Catholic and 12 by Protestant terror groups. It is deplorable that the Secretary of State should mislead the House in that manner.
I have tried to break down the figures to find a way in which the Secretary of State could be justified. I thought

that the best thing to do was to look at the Roman Catholic victims of terror during that period. There were 21 of them, compared with 35 Protestant victims. Of the 21 Roman Catholic victims, 11 had been killed by Roman Catholic terror groups and 10 by Protestant terror groups.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious charge that I misled the House and he has tried to work out how that could be. It would have been a courtesy to the House if he had read out the whole of the question asked by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) to which I was responding. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) did not intend to mislead the House about the answer I gave.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the question to which I was replying, he will see that when I said that the figures were correct, I was referring to the first part of the question. The question referred to the number of deaths in the first year of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the first year after the signing of the Sunningdale agreement. The hon. Gentleman has made a serious charge and has made rather heavy weather of it. I am obviously anxious not to mislead the House in any way. I said that the first figures were correct. I gave a separate answer to the second part of the question, but I did not confirm what the hon. Gentleman said in that part. I hope that it will satisfy honour on all sides when I say that the figures in the first part of the question put by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh were correct, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not true to say that the second part is correct. I checked the figures subsequently. I was referring to the first part of the question, which the hon. Gentleman left out in his misleading statement.

Mr. Maginnis: I accept what the Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box today. However, whether intentionally or otherwise, it is misleading for him to be selective in the way in which he answers the question. If he looks at his answer I think that he will agree with me that he did not say that he confirmed the figures in relation to the initial comparison. He just confirmed the figures. However, I shall let the matter rest there. I am glad that he has borne out the facts that I have related to the House this evening.
It is in the light of such figures that we must review the Bill, which is meant to help to bring about a system of justice, whereby the people whom I represent, who feel that they have been denied their democratic rights, can at least expect protection under the law.
I shall not examine the Bill in detail because that will be done in Committee, but I want to convey to the House the extent to which that protection under the law is missing. Again, that was not dealt with this evening by the Secretary of State, when he indulged in a serious series of clichés and platitudes to establish a platform on which to try to sell the Bill to the House.
Since 1971, there have been 178 terrorist murders in my constituency. Of those, three were committed, I am sad to say, by the Regular Army. But two of those murders by the Regular Army have been solved and soldiers are serving life sentences for them. Twenty-two of the murders were committed by Protestant terror groups. Eleven of those murders — 50 per cent. — have been solved. The House might consider that to be an encouraging figure, but, compared with the 153 murders by Roman Catholic


terror groups, of which 139 are as yet unsolved—91 per cent.—one will understand my assertion that there is no protection under the law for the people whom I represent.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman referred to Protestant paramilitary groups and Roman Catholic paramilitary groups as if we were talking about a religious war. Surely he is using the wrong sort of definitions.

Mr. Maginnis: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I should like to be able to express my point differently. But if I referred to the IRA, the common terminology used for the Roman Catholic republican terror groups, and then referred to Protestant loyalist terror groups, the common parlance that one reads in the press, I am in many ways removing from the Roman Catholic community the responsibility of recognising that it is from within that community that a lot of the terrorism emanates. By using the term "Protestant terror group" I am recognising the terror that emanates from the community of which I am a member. I wish that I could give the hon. Gentleman a more euphemistic account of the harsh facts that I am presenting to the House this evening.
If we are to have any change—none has emanated from the Anglo-Irish diktat—in the condition that prevails in Northern Ireland of law and justice, we should bear in mind, as we examine the Bill, Sir George Baker's comments:
In my analysis of the powers I try to be as objective as possible remembering, when striking the balance that my terms of reference require, that there are human duties as well as human liberties on the one hand to equate with powers needed in a civilized community to protect its members on the other.
From what has been said, I get the impression that we may fall into the trap of examining the Bill in terms of how we can in some way make things easier for those who commit crimes, or perhaps if not easier for them, easier for their families. I heard one hon. Member allude to the tragedy that terrorism presented for the families of those who perpetrated the terrorism.
The real crux of the matter is that we are living in a Province which, for 17 years, has not had protection under the law, let alone democracy. There appear to be vast gaps in the Bill and those gaps must be filled before we can feel that it can serve the purpose for which it is intended.
Broadly, we in the Ulster Unionist party favour the Baker recommendations. We will not oppose the Second Reading, but in co-operation with the Opposition and other hon. Members we will seek to improve the measure in Committee. I am disappointed to learn that the Committee stage is not to be taken on the Floor of the House. I noted what the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said. He said that hon. Members will have the opportunity to examine and debate the Bill in Committee. That will not happen if the Committee stage is taken upstairs. It should be taken on the Floor of the House.

Sir John Farr: The hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will forgive me if I do not follow too closely the line of their arguments. They presented those arguments in great detail and were a great

help to the debate. I should like to speak about a matter mentioned by several hon. Members and especially by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). They spoke about where the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said that it ought to be taken on the Floor of the House.
This is a major Northern Ireland Bill of great importance. Because of that there could be a case for considering it not upstairs in Committee on Tuesday and Thursday or on the Floor of the House but in Northern Ireland itself on a couple of days a week. I gather that Stormont is empty and virtually unused. We could meet there on two successive days, say Wednesday and Thursday or Tuesday and Wednesday, and make good progress. Indeed, by doing that we would be following the example already put to good use by the Scottish Grand Committee.
As I have said, this is an important measure and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we owe a lot to the late Sir George Baker for his work. The Bill confers certain rights on detained persons and emphasises that these are to apply in Northern Ireland. Those rights are detailed in part II of the Bill clauses 13 and 14 and I shall shortly say why I am interested in those rights. I am also interested in part I, clause 4 which deals with:
Admissions by persons charged with scheduled offences".
Under clause 4 statements will be disallowed if there is a hint of force. Part II is about the rights of persons detained in police custody under terrorism provisions. Clause 12
provides that such a person has a right to have someone informed that he is being detained".
Clause 13 provides a right of access to legal advice and clause 14 is an interpretation of the terms used in part II.
This is a wide-ranging Bill and in these four clauses big steps are taken to protect somebody who has been detained under the terrorism provisions; they try as far as possible to make sure that any confessions which a prisoner may be alleged to have made were made voluntarily and without the use of force by those who have detained him and who have interviewed him. That applies to the police or whoever may be involved in the arrests, placing in custody and interviewing of a prisoner who is to be sentenced. These four clauses strengthen the panoply of protections for a prisoner who may be falsely accused. In that respect they go some way towards the House making certain that as far as possible and at any rate in Northern Ireland, nobody will be brutalised or ill-treated while in the hands of the police.
However, the Bill goes further than the four modest clauses about which I have spoken—clause 4 in part I and clauses 12, 13 and 14 in part II. I should like to see included in the Bill something which would be a major step in protecting prisoners who may not be ready to make a confession from brutalisation by the police in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. 1 should like to see the large-scale use of video cameras. We do not use video cameras much in Great Britain and do not use them at all in the handling of prisoners in police custody in Northern Ireland. I see no reason why we should not use them, because modern technology and the low cost of video cameras make it possible to set up a system of video camera protection by right for all accused persons, certainly in Northern Ireland but later I should like to see that take place in Great Britain.
I can see no reason why a prisoner's statement which he has to sign cannot finally be recorded on video; nor can I see any reason why, when the whole of the session at which the charge is read out to the prisoner cannot be recorded on video and made available for the courts to study. It may not happen under the terms of this Bill, but certainly within five to 10 years all prisoners in police custody for terrorist offences will have the whole of their interrogation in custody covered on video. That will come because the system is cheap and available now.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take a forward step in that direction. Why cannot one police station in Belfast, in parallel with one on the mainland, be used for the introduction of video screening of all interviews of this nature next year? My hon. Friend the Minister of State may not even bother to reply to my remarks, but I know that generally he is courteous and diligent. If he takes up this issue, he may say that the cost would be excessive and that it cannot be considered, if that is his position, I remind him that many of the fastest growing businesses are video shops. Video cameras and films are available to everyone in Britain and the cost of a pilot scheme in one named police station for one year in Belfast and one in London would not be excessive.

Mr. Scott: All interrogations in Northern Ireland take place in front of video cameras. They are monitored by senior officers. Video cameras are available for the protection of prisoners following the recommendation of the Bennett report on interrogation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is a distinction to be drawn between having videos for the protection of prisoners and using videos for the presentation of evidence in court. There are real differences on that score and my hon. Friend knows that they are being addressed, at least in the context of some offences in Great Britain.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he has seen the value of video equipment for the protection of innocent people who may be accused of crimes for which they are not responsible. I do not want to detain the House, and with those few words I shall resume my place, having said that I support the Bill.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is about time we had cameras to assist with cricket umpiring decisions, with the provision of immediate replays. That would be a useful facility when a batsman is declared to be out somewhat suspiciously for being caught behind or lbw.
The Bill has been a long time coming, but we can at least thank the Government for honouring the undertakings that they have given over the past couple of years to introduce this legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament. I welcome the announcement of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that the Official Unionists intend to table amendments to the Bill and to argue their case in Committee. Indeed, I have been given copies of the amendments that they intend to table. I think that everyone in the House will welcome their participation. It is only right that they should play a major part in the deliberations of the Bill in Committee and on Report.
I am disappointed by the limited nature of the Bill. It is good as far as it goes but it does not go far enough. The

publication of Sir George Baker's report was way back in April 1984, long before the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is not in his place. At that time my right hon. and hon. Friends made it clear that we thought that Sir George could have been bolder. We regretted that he had not felt able to recommend the return of jury trials wherever practicable. We regretted, too, that he had not insisted on independent corroboration of supergrass evidence and had not recommended that Northern Ireland should be brought into line with Scottish practice, with the introduction of the 124-day rule. This he explained in his report at page 52. Another disappointment was that he did not recommend that the number of defendants should be restricted to 10 or fewer per trial. If he did not make a recommendation, he suggested that there should not be more than 20 defendants per trial. We wanted the maximum number of defendants to be reduced to as few as six, which may have been asking too much.
Having scrutinised the Bill, we find that Sir George's recommendation of automatic bail after 12 months if a defendant has not been committed for trial by that stage has not been included. Similarly, the Bill does not include the removal from the Diplock courts of trials for less serious offences or of any offence not connected with a paramilitary force. Sir George went into some detail on these matters and I refer the House to recommendations 12 and 13 at the end of his report.
I accept that for the time being at least the series of supergrass or accomplice cases is almost over. A substantial number of these cases have been thrown out, or earlier convictions have been reversed on appeal. Is this really the end? Surely the Bill should provide some protection for those implicated by the often dubious claims of those admitting guilt and deciding to turn Queen's evidence.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have supported consistently the proposal emanating from many sources that non-jury trials should be conducted by three judges rather than one. This has nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement or pressure from south of the border. I recognise that this issue was taken up by Sir George Baker and argued cogently. The present system places an enormous burden on the individual judge and I pay my tribute to the judges of Northern Ireland, in company with the Secretary of State. I have enormous respect for them. They are mostly brave and honest men and I am sure that they do the best job that they can. The statistics that have been presented to us bear that out.
I readily appreciate the difficulties of implementing the three-judge proposal when Northern Ireland has a limited judiciary, because the statistics were set out in some detail in the report which appeared in 1984. I recognise that appeals are heard before three judges, and we know from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that appeals often take an extremely long time to be heard. The hon. Gentleman mentioned three to four years. There have been options suggested if the three-judge proposal is not acceptable, and the Northern Ireland Alliance party has suggested that there should be two judges instead of three. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), before he became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland way back in 1973, succeeded in having an alternative approved by the House, which did not necessarily involve all judges. I am disappointed that the


three-judge proposal has not been taken on board, and I am aware that it has been argued cogently in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
It is accepted by the Dublin Government that the British Government do not wish to be committed, and they are not making any fuss about that. That should be put on record.
The time that defendants may be held in custody in Northern Ireland without a trial is a serious matter and one that should be tackled without further delay. That comment applies also to the rest of the United Kingdom. The figures that were given to Sir George Baker by the Northern Ireland Alliance party showed that at that time the average remand without bail before trial in 1979, 1980 and 1981 was no fewer than 370, 301 and 306 days respectively. Those were the averages and some remands were much longer than that. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has produced some more statistics.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Would it be possible to clarify the number of postponements that take place because an accused has chosen a certain barrister to represent him and not because a judge is not available to hear the trial? I have found as a representative of defendants that postponements are the result of an individual having selected a particular barrister to defend him and not because judges are not available to hear cases. If a certain barrister has been selected, a defendant will have to wait his time in the queue.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that that is a pertinent point. I do not know whether the Minister can provide some up-to-date statistics on this matter. I am not a qualified lawyer, but when I have attended courts in the past as an expert witness I have been staggered by the practices of the law in Great Britain. I remember attending Winchester assizes on behalf of a lady who had a strong case. She was told that Mr. Justice Brown was not available and that the case would not be heard before Mr. Justice White because her advisers thought that he would not come to the right decision. We had to wait for Mr. Justice Blue. The lady did not want to change her barrister but a new one was suddenly introduced to her, as the original one had been called to another case. If the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is saying that the selection of a certain barrister can lead to delays, I understand his argument. Delays are far too long, however, and it is up to us to try to reduce them. It is for the Law Society in Great Britain and its equivalent in Northern Ireland to try to do so and to put their houses in order.
I suspect that evidence was given to Sir George Baker that the conditions in which prisoners are held for long periods left a great deal to be desired. My inspections of prisons in Northern Ireland led me to think that they tended to be better there than in Britain, and substantially so. I do not know whether that still applies but I suspect that it probably does.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome clauses 1 to 11 which, seem to be much in line with Sir George's recommendations. Clauses 12 and 13 are also a limited improvement on current practices and bring Northern Ireland into line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.I suspect that part III, although welcome, is not only too late but will prove to be inadequate to deal with

the problem that is now rife, particularly in Belfast. In a recent article in The Irish Times — I hope that it is acceptable to the House—Mr. Jim Cusack wrote:
A retired professional from Belfast this week said that he had visited a friend who was still in business and who told him that he had encountered a group of Protestant and Catholic paramilitaries involved in discussions across the street from the entrance to his site. He believes they were arguing over the division of spoils from his business. It appears that the two sides reached agreement as both Catholic and Protestant workmen remain on the site and although the cost of this was not mentioned the going rate for protecting a building site is between £500 and £2,000 a week.
In the same article Mr. Cusack said:
Some four years ago, the RUC set up a special anti-extortion squad to see to this business. It is understood that it remains a tiny group which, although it has had some signal successes in stopping tax evasion frauds on building sites, is just not big enough to even begin to tackle the problems posed by the paramilitaries' alternative economics.
The Minister is aware of that article. I suspect that the clauses, which are welcome, will not deal with that situation. It is important that we try to co-operate.
Neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State will accuse me of not being supportive of recent Government policies in Northern Ireland. I often find myself almost alone during these debates. Although Bills went through the House by a colossal majority, Government Members who assiduously attend always opposed the matter under debate and tried to bring it into line with something that had gone wrong with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There are times when the Minister puts that support at risk. My party will not oppose the Second Reading, but we do beg the Minister to be more forthcoming in Committee. We also support the renewal of the existing order under the 1978 Act for another six months. I welcome the fact that it will be an annual event from now on—after the six months have passed, one hopes—and that the Bill will terminate after five years.

Mr. William Cash: The last words in the Bill are:
This Act extends to Northern Ireland only.
One might just as well see the words
This Act extends only to Northern Ireland.
This legislation is designed to deal with a difficult situation that applies to a part of the United Kingdom. I welcome the Bill and the fact that it is a Bill. It provides an opportunity to consider these questions in Parliament, with the co-operation and assistance of Opposition Members whom I welcome to the debate.
In the past I have advocated the idea that Bills of this type—if such a Bill were ever to come before the House during the recent troubles—should be referred to a Special Standing Committee. Further investigation into the reasons why these provisions should be dealt with in the House and in Committee could usefully and fruitfully be carried out by a Special Standing Committee. The Bill is for all citizens of Northern Ireland. A Bill such as this will be able to alleviate much bigotry and prejudice. I welcome the Bill and wish it every speed in Committee.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) were brief. I shall not seek to follow him, but will refer to the substance of the Second Reading.
In a sense, this is the third Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill in the past 15 years. It is


pleasing to see in the House the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Both hon. Members were in the House in 1973 when the first emergency provisions Bill was introduced. All the measures since 1973, including the present Bill, will end up by being institutionalised and a part of our legal system.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitelaw, when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, introduced the first emergency provisions Bill in 1973. He declared:
none of the provisions of the Bill, if it is passed, should continue in force a moment longer than it is needed."—[Official Report, 17 April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 278.]
Through no fault of the noble Lord, those words may be billed as famous last words, certainly in relation to Northern Ireland and the emergency provisions. It is a measure of implied defeat to find political settlements and solutions for Northern Ireland that, rather than renew the emergency provisions legislation on a six-monthly basis, we are talking of renewing it on a yearly basis. The Secretary of State was kind enough to tell the House that the next debate on this subject would be in March 1988, to coincide with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. As he rightly said, we shall all be here. Of course, at that time Labour Members will be on the Government Benches, not on the Opposition Benches.
It was, strangely enough, Miss Bernadette Devlin, now Mrs. McAlisky, the then hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, who foresaw the consequences of the first emergency provisions legislation. She warned that it would lead to a gradual erosion of civil liberties and traditions. She considered that the Diplock Commission's report, on which the legislation was built, was "conviction oriented" and she wondered what had happened to the sense of British justice in which all men were innocent until proven guilty. Bernadette McAlisky saw in the 1973 Bill an erosion of the respect and a respect for democracy. She was not far wrong.

Mr. Tom King: rose—

Mr. Bell: The Secretary of State, from a sedentary position, seeks to contradict me. The first casualty was that of trial by jury, that time-honoured right of a man charged with serious criminal offences to be delivered up to his fellow citizens who would ascertain the facts of the matters held against him. This last bastion of a man's personal liberty and individual freedom was the first casualty of the bomb and the bullet which, of course, deprived the victim of the most important, fundamental human right of all, the right to life.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to a former colleague, a Member of the House, Mr. Robert Bradford, who lost his life in the service of the House while conducting a surgery on the morning of Saturday 15 November.
In her speech of 1973, Bernadette McAlisky quoted her namesake, Lord Devlin, who wrote in a book entitled "Trial by Jury":
Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.
The text is none the worse for a collision of metaphors, but if it is true that a jury trial is the lamp that shows that freedom lives, it has been extinguished for many people in Northern Ireland.
The Government perceived this to be the case. Twenty-one months after the late Sir George Baker issued his

review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Government introduced in 1985 the limited but nevertheless important reform of allowing the Attorney-General to certify out of the Diplock courts, and therefore back to jury trials, a list of so-called scheduled offences to include kidnapping, false imprisonment, intimidation, damage to railways and some firearms offences. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that it did not go far enough. It did not mean, nor does it mean now, that all the cases tried before the Diplock courts are directly associated with terrorist crime.
Since 1973, in addition to non-jury trials, plastic bullets have been imported on to the mainland to be stored against eventual use. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been placed upon the statute book. It was based, in part, on Northern Ireland policing experience. There have been allegations of a shoot-to-kill policy. This has not attracted the attention of the House tonight, but it has certainly claimed one innocent life. Our common law has been contorted to make way for confessions made other than with the full consent of the accused. Prisoners have been held on remand for more than a year prior to committal for trial. The onus for bail has been moved from the prosecution to the defence, and now, thanks to the Bill, it is moved back again.
I should like to say a final word on the Diplock courts. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made a cogent and interesting speech. He drew the attention of the House to the prospect of three judges disagreeing among themselves. However, the significance of the three judges is in the context of Northern Ireland and the atmosphere there. I shall come back to this in a moment.
It is a matter of regret for the Opposition that the Law Officers of the Crown have reportedly advised the Prime Minister against three judges sitting in the Diplock courts. It is true, of course, that there is an automatic appeal to an appeal court that has three judges, but that hardly assists a person convicted by a single judge without a jury when delays to the appeal court appear interminable and when his conviction is quashed because it was unsafe in the first place. One can understand the concern of civil rights organisations, but equally, in political terms, one can understand the ripples of legitimate grievance that manifest themselves in further alienation and moroseness on the part of the Nationalist community.
The truth is that over the past 15 years the administration of justice has become intermingled with the political, economic and security situation in Northern Ireland. It is to political and economic development that we must look if we wish to see an alleviation in the principles of the administration of justice as they apply to Northern Ireland.
The situation has not changed too much since the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), the then Secretary of State, stood at the Dispatch Box and declared that in broad terms the people in Northern Ireland still require special protection from terrorism
and exceptional powers are therefore necessary".—[Official Report, 5 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 559.]
Today again, sadly and tragically, we have seen the Provisional IRA launch its pre-Christmas onslaught on fellow Irish men and Irish women with a 1,000 1b bomb on a Belfast police station, with seven people injured. Regrettably and tragically, there may be more to come. We ally ourselves with the statement by the Secretary of


State, supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West, that we wish to give full support to the security forces. We give them that support in the execution of their duties, to prevent the death and injury of those who live in Northern Ireland at this time of festivity and peace among men.
The IRA has no peace in its heart, only murder in its mind and soul, and this will darken the holiday period to which we are coming. No future Labour Government will ever let up in their pursuit of terrorists, of whatever paramilitary ilk. I agreed with the intervention by the hon. Member for Newbury that it is the wrong designation to list those people in a religious fashion. They are paramilitaries, men committed to violence. Nor will the future Labour Government shirk the political and economic initiatives to lessen the conditions in which violence breeds and the attraction of young people towards men of violence. That point was touched on by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who said that young people were alienated from the society in which they live and were attracted towards violence.
We have had a short but interesting debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not wish to prolong it unduly. The Government have said that the Bill will be repealed in five years' time. That repeal will be contingent, in the Government's mind, on the political situation becoming normal in Northern Ireland. That must be a matter for those who seek to resolve their identity in the island of Ireland—whether they can live in peace and whether a will to peace can be brought within the political framework that would make such peace durable.
A future Labour Government will look at all prospects and possibilities of bringing a form of local government back to the people of Northern Ireland, without gerrymandered boundaries fixed to give one party an inbuilt majority, and which is widely acceptable to the people who live there, whether Unionist or Nationalist. Thus, local power could be given back to local people and the great cloud of bewilderment and depression could be lifted from the lives of ordinary people.
Only a political solution acceptable to all can bring the criminal law in Northern Ireland back into its proper focus, without Diplock courts, without supergrass trials, without long periods on remand, in custody and without trial, and without intervening court appearances. Thus, the long assault on civil and human rights in Northern Ireland could be brought to an end.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said that the Bill did not go far enough. In fact, the Baker report made about 72 recommendations. In Committee we shall seek to further and advance the cause left to us by the late Sir George Baker, by improving and modifying the Bill.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It is clear from our debate that we can look forward to a busy Committee. It is certainly not for me to make any decision about the form that those proceedings might take, but other ways of making representations about that are open to hon. Members.
Some hon. Members mentioned the need to derogate as little as possible from what we regard as normal practice in terms of the administration of justice in our necessary

attempts in Northern Ireland to combat terrorism. Others have said that the Bill may be going too far; it may make life too easy for the terrorist. Those two clear views emerged during the debate. My judgment, subject to what is said in Committee, is that we have the balance about right.
Our policy on terrorism in Northern Ireland has two aims. The first is continually to search for new ways to erode the effectiveness of the terrorist's campaign, to deny him the free movement of men, the money, explosives and weapons that he uses for his work, and increasingly to be able to deny him the opportunity to use the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as a weapon in his armoury. At the same time we seek to win the confidence of the public in Northern Ireland across both communities for the activities of the security forces and the administration of justice. It is a balance that has to be held, but, as Sir George Baker said eloquently in his report, we must never forget that the first and principal right that we have as citizens in a liberal democratic society is the right to life itself.
I know the feelings of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and how he feels about the toll of terrorism that has been wrought in his part of Northern Ireland. We need to make sure that we provide the resources in terms of money and legislation to enable the battle against terrorism to continue.
I am grateful for the welcome given by several hon. Members to the measures that we intend to take against firms that masquerade as security firms simply to run protection rackets in Northern Ireland. I believe that we have an effective way of tackling that problem.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned statistics on the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. A parliamentary question has been answered today giving such information as we have about the operation of the Act since 1973. I am afraid that it has taken longer than I should have wished to organise the statistical basis to produce the statistics that would be meaningful and helpful to hon. Members. They are being assembled from several different sources. In future the statistics will be published regularly, as they are for the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
In the context of certifying out, the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Cobden Trust study on the number of defendants appearing before Diplock courts who have no connection with terrorism. I do not intend to go into the detail of that argument, but I say simply, as I have said on the Floor of the House before in more detail, that the Government do not accept the methodology that led the authors of the Cobden Trust study to come to that conclusion. It is unsound. We do not accept the 40 per cent. figure.
Clauses 12 and 13 are equivalent to provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West understood from the reaction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me that the Bill only confers these rights on people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. Just as the terrorism provisions are temporary, so these rights are temporary. As for the ordinary law of Northern Ireland, we are giving consideration to enacting legislation for Northern Ireland which is equivalent to the provisions in


the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I hope that we shall be able to publish proposals for a draft order within the next year or, indeed, beat that deadline.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West mentioned the admissibility of confessions and asked what was wrong in relying on the ordinary test of voluntariness which applies on this side of the water. I refer him to the Diplock report, especially paragraphs 73 to 92, which set out the difficulties of that approach in Northern Ireland. The Diplock commission found, in brief, that the common law test of voluntariness had been interpreted particularly strictly by the Northern Ireland courts in a manner that could render almost any statement inadmissible. The proposed new section 8 of the 1978 Act seeks to prevent that happening so that such evidence can at least be considered by the courts.
In addition to the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I draw attention to the conclusion of clause 4 which gives general discretion to the court to take any of the steps mentioned earlier in that clause
if it appears to the court that it is appropriate to do so in order to avoid unfairness to the accused or otherwise in the interests of justice.
That blanket discretion to set aside or to disregard a statement is extremely widely based.
I should like to respond to three points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He criticised the terminology of the Bill's title and asked why it is still called "emergency provisions" legislation. I think that it is right to bring home to the House and to the public in the Bill's title that we are dealing with what is essentially an exceptional state of affairs, which we are anxious to bring to an end as soon as possible. But exceptional cases need exceptional measures. It is important, at least in the five years before the legislation is repealed, that there is a moment when we again look fundamentally, apart from any annual reviews, at the emergency legislation needed to deal with the position in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury expressed the hope that elected representatives from Northern Ireland could play some part in the working of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is an intergovernmental conference, but, if elected representatives from Northern Ireland wish to be involved, consulted and informed about the conference's affairs, I do not have the slightest doubt that appropriate arrangements could be made to allow that to happen. Earlier this year when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw the leaders of the two Unionist parties, she made the offer to talk to them about their worries. That offer remains open. I urge the leaders of those parties, if they wish to be involved, to take up my right hon. Friend's offer, discuss their worries with her and together find out what arrangements we might make to involve them in that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury referred to the proscription of Sinn Fein or the need for political parties, or perhaps individuals, to make a declaration of non-violence before taking part in the democratic process. That is not an unattractive idea but, before going down either road, we should have to be absolutely clear that we were taking steps that would work in practice and not doing something that, in the end, could be exploited by Sinn Fein and other organisations which support

paramilitary action. The idea merits careful consideration and is not something that the Government have ruled out in all circumstances.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) raised a number of points. He referred to three-judge courts, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir I. Gow). The hon. Gentleman asked especially about the requisition of land in his constituency, and I understand his point. I do not believe that it would be practical to give prior notice of the intention of the security forces to requisition lands, not least because of the risk that that would pose to them. But I can assure the House that, when an act of requisition takes place, the Government and their agencies make the most strenuous efforts to provide prompt and adequate compensation. No land or property which has been requisitioned remains in the Government's hands any longer than is absolutely necessary in the interests of security. Such measures are regrettable—I understand the feelings that they arouse—but they are necessary in dealing with the vicious campaign of terrorism that Northern Ireland has had to endure.
I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne of two points. First, mixed courts are not on the agenda for discussion in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. Secondly, the appointment of judges in Northern Ireland has taken place, and will take place, entirely and simply on the basis of the merits of individuals available for those posts irrespective of religious, political or any other affiliation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne asked why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we were not presently persuaded by the arguments in favour of three-judge courts. We have heard both sides of the arguments. Some hon. Members favour three-judge courts and some are against them. I think that the arguments are finely balanced. The Government's position is clear. We are not presently persuaded that the advantages of going down that road outweigh the disadvantages. But nothing is for ever. One does not make commitments about matters when the arguments are finely balanced. We have made our position absolutely clear, and I understand that my hon. Friend agrees with the Government's view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne referred also to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism and the Irish accession to it. The Irish Government have signed the convention. The Committee stage of the Bill to ratify the convention is taking place in the Dail today. I know of the Irish Government's determination to see this legislation through the Dail before Christmas.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone raised a number of points, and I wish to respond clearly and unequivocally to one in particular. There is no political interference with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its operations. The Chief Constable and the police authority for Northern Ireland would not tolerate it for one moment and Ministers would not seek to have any such influence.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone asked why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not responded clearly to the lack of support expressed by the Social Democratic and Labour party for the RUC. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) may well remember the last oral questions on Northern Ireland when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he very much welcomed Mr. Barry's statement and said:


as I made clear in an earlier answer, I very much hope that the SDLP will support it as well."—[Official Report, 27 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 426.]
It is unfair to criticise my right hon. Friend on those grounds.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked about automatic bail after one year on remand. The Government are absolutely committed to the elimination of avoidable delays in the judicial process in Northern Ireland. By the appointment of an additional judge, by a considerable number of additional senior counsel and by speeding up the processes of the RUC in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, we want to do our best to reduce those delays to the minimum. That is in the interests of everyone as well as of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. We are monitoring the field trials being conducted in England and Wales with a view to ascertaining whether they have any relevance to the very different circumstances in Northern Ireland.
In my view, Sir George Baker's proposal would be a rather crude weapon, which might give defendants an incentive to slow down or delay progress in their cases coming to trial. It is worth remembering that some of the most difficult cases involve the most serious terrorist input. We are anxious to cut delays, and we shall monitor those trials. We have not ruled out the possibility that it has some relevance to the situation in Northern Ireland.
In an intervention the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked whether we had any statistics on delays or postponements caused by the non-availability of defence counsel. The short answer is no, but I well know that that is a considerable factor in delays in cases coming to trial in Northern Ireland.
At the conclusion of this debate the House will be invited to consider a money resolution. The expenditure required by the Bill arises under part 3, in that the Northern Ireland Office will probably be required to employ an extra executive officer at a global cost of about £15,000 a year in order to administer the certification scheme for the private security industry. Nobody is in the business of empire building, and no other provision in the Bill will have any significant effect on public expenditure. In the light of that brief explanation, I hope that it will be possible for the money resolution to be taken on the nod.
We shall also be asking the House to renew the continuance order for the temporary provisions of the 1978 Act. I believe that we have made a case for retaining a framework of emergency powers. We are, in this Bill, reforming them and making them more in tune with Northern Ireland's present needs. But we need to have the continuance order so that there is no gap between the existing provisions and those proposed in the Bill. I hope that the order will also be dealt with formally.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under provisions of that Act relating to the regulation of the provision of security services.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made and Question put,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 126.

Division No. 42]
[8.11 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aitken, Jonathan
Forth, Eric


Alexander, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Ancram, Michael
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Tom
Fry, Peter


Ashby, David
Galley, Roy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Baldry, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Beith, A. J.
Gow, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Greenway, Harry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gregory, Conal


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Harvey, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce, Malcolm
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Budgen, Nick
Hayward, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Henderson, Barry


Butcher, John
Hickmet, Richard


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hicks, Robert


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hirst, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Corrie, John
Irving, Charles


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnston, Sir Russell


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Kennedy, Charles


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkwood, Archy


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Knox, David


Favell, Anthony
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fletcher, Alexander
Lawrence, Ivan


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lee, John (Pendle)






Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Penhaligon, David


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Pollock, Alexander


Lightbown, David
Portillo, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Price, Sir David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Raffan, Keith


Lord, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Lyell, Nicholas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


McCrindle, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Roe, Mrs Marion


Macfarlane, Neil
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sackville, Hon Thomas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Scott, Nicholas


Maclean, David John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maclennan, Robert
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sims, Roger


McQuarrie, Albert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Wallace, James


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Waller, Gary


Moate, Roger
Watts, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Neale, Gerrard
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Newton, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Norris, Steven
Yeo, Tim


Onslow, Cranley
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Oppenheim, Phillip



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Mr. Gerald Malone.


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Anderson, Donald
Bermingham, Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashton, Joe
Blair, Anthony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boyes, Roland


Barron, Kevin
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Bell, Stuart
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)





Caborn, Richard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Loyden, Edward


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David ( Shields)
McNamara, Kevin


Clarke, Thomas
Madden, Max


Clay, Robert
Mallon, Seamus


Clelland, David Gordon
Martin, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Maxton, John


Coleman, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Meacher, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Michie, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dalyell, Tam
Nellist, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
O'Brien, William


Deakins, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Donald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dormand, Jack
Patchett, Terry


Dubs, Alfred
Pavitt, Laurie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pendry, Tom


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pike, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Radice, Giles


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Randall, Stuart


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Raynsford, Nick


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fisher, Mark
Robertson, George


Flannery, Martin
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rogers, Allan


Foster, Derek
Rooker, J. W.


Foulkes, George
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


George, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Gould, Bryan
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Spearing, Nigel


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Stott, Roger


Home Robertson, John
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wigley, Dafydd


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Winnick, David


Lamond, James
Woodall, Alec


Leadbitter, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Leighton, Ronald



Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Tellers for the Noes:


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Chris Smith and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Derek Fatchett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Supplementary Benefit

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): I beg to move,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Housing Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.
I understand it may be for the convenience of the House if we take at this time the prayer in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2154), dated 8th December 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be annulled.
These regulations are the product of a long consultative process that began 18 months ago in the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security". The Government declared their intention then of discussing with buildng societies and others
arrangements whereby less emphasis—particularly for claimants on benefits for short periods—would be placed on help through the social security system".
We confirmed that those discussions were continuing when we published the White Paper last December. We said then that these would include
the possibility of a limit on the proportion of mortgage interest which would be met during the initial period in receipt of benefit".
These regulations are not, therefore, novel or surprising.
In May this year, draft regulations incorporating the Government's proposals were referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. The main proposal was to limit the amount of mortgage interest eligible for reimbursement through supplementary benefit to one half of the interest payment during the first six months on benefit. This was to be applied only to claimants under 60. After the six-months period, it was proposed that interest would be met in full together with extra help with interest on any arrears arising from the restriction.
A number of protective measures were also included with the main proposal. These included a new linking rule between claims, to avoid penalising short breaks in benefit entitlement. This is self-evidently important. We proposed also a special disregard of income from mortgage protection policies to encourage people to protect themselves against short-term inability to meet their mortgage commitments, and to help them when they did so.
Other changes were proposed which were designed to ensure that supplementary benefit was used specifically to help claimants with accommodation costs rather than with business-related costs as well.
The Government received the advisory committee's report in August. We gave it very careful consideration before we decided that it was right in principle to limit supplementary benefit assistance with mortgage interest. I announced this conclusion to the House last Wednesday, together with two important modifications to our original proposals. These are both incorporated in the regulations before the House tonight.
First, the restriction period has been reduced from six months—literally, 26 weeks—to 16 weeks only. This change not only materially reduces the impact on individuals but also concentrates the change, rather more

so than previously, on shorter-term claimants. It also reduces the savings from £30 million, under the original proposal to £23 million. An estimated 75,000 claimants are likely to be affected at any one time. In the average case, if a claim runs for the full 16 weeks, then up to £170 less benefit may be payable. Most claims do not last this long, as about half those unemployed leave the register within three months and their loss of benefit is correspondingly smaller.
Secondly, we have accepted entirely the advisory committee's recommendation that action should be taken to avoid creating a mortgage interest trap and the regulations provide for this. Consequently, if a claim results in a nil award solely because the assessment was based on half the mortgage interest payments the claimant will be eligible—when he claims again after 16 weeks—to have the full interest payment taken into account. He will in effect be treated as if the 16 weeks restriction period had been served, and we shall advise all claimants refused benefits on the initial claim to reclaim again after 16 weeks. The purpose of this change is to help claimants who might otherwise not have been eligible for benefit at all and we hope that it will do so.
We have also decided to carry forward all the other proposed changes which were referred to the advisory committee. These were supported without exception by the committee in its report, which we laid before the House on 10 December, together with the Government's detailed response.
The main reason for the Government's action in this area is our wish to strike a fairer and more reasonable balance between the borrower, the lender and the taxpayer.

Mr. David Winnick: Squalid and rotten.

Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is once again gracing us with his presence. It is always a delight to see him here. The other week, he gave us his celebrated impersonation of a mixture of Uriah Heep and Jaws, and I see that he is intending to do the same thing again. I forget who it was said of whom that he greeted every problem with an open mouth and a closed mind, but it applies well to the hon. Gentleman.
The House was treated, if that is the correct word, to the full galaxy of thespian histrionics when I announced the Government's decision the other day. Lord Olivier would have eaten his heart out had he heard the hon. Members for Walsall, North, and for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The hon. Member for Oldham, West led the charge at some length, as I recall, but he should reflect on what he says before he says it. That would be an improvement.

Mr. Winnick: Squalid and rotten.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may be squalid and rotten, but I do not point it out to him more often than is necessary.
Last week, the hon. Member for Oldham, West painted a picture of unimaginable horrors, widespread evictions, marital breakdowns and homelessness. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that his instincts tend to run away with his judgment. He presented himself in the unlikely guise of the home-owners' champion which, in view of his record during the past few years, is brazen in the extreme.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Does the Minister deny that there have been evictions?

Mr. Major: I am coming to that. The hon. Gentleman got it wholly out of proportion.
I shall remind the House of some facts about the main change. The 16 weeks restriction will not apply to anybody who is aged 60 or over. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might not think that that is favourable. Perhaps they will say so if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After 16 weeks, every penny of mortgage interest will be eligible for help. In addition, any extra interest which is due on arrears that arise from the restrictions will also be eligible for help. That provides guaranteed assistance for everybody whose claim proves to be longer lasting.
There is now an eight-week linking rule to ensure that people are not discouraged from taking up a job. There is a special disregard of income from mortgage protection policies to allow claimants to benefit from such policies and thus to cover their mortgage interest payments fully. The main change will affect mostly short-term claimants, as half of those who are on the unemployment register go off it within three months. I repeat those points to illustrate our anxiety to produce a fair and reasonable approach. I believe that we have succeeded.

Mr. Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend talked about striking a balance between the borrower, the lender and the taxpayer. A home is an asset and its ownership is aided by tax incentives. Surely it would be cheap and easy for people to insure against the eventuality of their not being able to pay the mortgage for 16 weeks. Many people do just that and I do not understand what the drama is about. Most prudent people insure against unemployment, sickness and death. Does my hon. Friend have any idea what the actuarial cost of a commercial insurance policy covering somebody who is unable to pay a mortgage for 16 weeks might be?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend has made a valuable observation and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The insurance that he has in mind might vary in cost according to a variety of factors, but is unlikely to exceed £10 per year, which is not an especially onerous proposition. I hope that the House will note what my hon. Friend has said.
I remind the House of what the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Building Societies Association have said. The committee said, in paragraph 54 of its report:
For the majority of claimants the proposals should not bring significant financial hardship.
That, of course, was in the context of the original six months' limitation, not the much shorter 16 weeks now envisaged. Therefore, its comment is even more apt in regard to the shorter period. The Building Societies Association has given assurances that it would respond to these changes sympathetically and reasonably. Its press statement last week said that it
saw no reason to expect that people will lose their homes as a result".
Those statements put the change into proper perspective. I look forward to Opposition Members acknowledging these points and admitting that their forebodings last week were substantially overcooked.

Mr. Frank Field: I hope that the assurance that the Minister is giving on behalf of the

building societies will be met. Will he say a little more about his discussions with the Building Societies Association because, at the beginning of his speech, one could have concluded that there has been continuous negotiations ever since the Green Paper was published? One of the groups about whom hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned is people who become unemployed but already have arrears because, before becoming unemployed, they were on short-time working. In his negotiations with the building societies has the Minister received an assurance that they will look and act sympathetically towards that group.

Mr. Major: These proposals change nothing in regard to arrears. I should correct the hon. Gentleman on one point — we were not negotiating with the Building Societies Association. There have been discussions with it at official level — not with me — in advance of the reference to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. Any subsequent consultation was undertaken by the SSAC before it produced its report to the House.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He has brushed aside a matter that is important for many of our constituents. There is all the difference in the world between falling into mortgage arrears because one is on short-time working and going on to the dole when one has no money to put towards the mortgage, whereupon arrears will mount quickly, even if that happens for 16 weeks. If the Minister cannot assure the House that he has followed that matter up with the building societies himself or at official level, will he undertake to follow it up after this debate?

Mr. Major: Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not want people who fall into arrears to find themselves in undue difficulties. People often fall into arrears through no fault of their own. That was not a subject for discussion with local authorities because it was not directly related to the proposals before us. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about arrears as I share his anxiety that people who have ventured into home ownership should remain in home ownership. That is in their interests and in the interests of their families and everybody else.
The third reason why Opposition Members were mistaken in their strictures of the Government last week is that they forgot, or in some cases chose to ignore, the experience of a very long miners' strike and how mortgage lenders reacted to it.

Mr. Winnick: That was completely different.

Mr. Major: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to explain why if he catches the Chair's eye.
I should like to say why I think that the miners' strike is not completely different. Building societies and other lenders did not foreclose during that very long strike. They did not seek repossession and they did not force miners to become homeless. They did none of those things, despite the length of the strike, which was far longer than 16 weeks, and the fact that supplementary benefit for full mortgage interest was not being paid in many cases. So why do the Opposition assume that building societies and local authorities will react any less generously now, especially when full interest will be eligible after 16 weeks and extra help will be available for extra interest as I have


explained? There is no reason, and it will not happen. The Building Societies Association does not expect it, I do not expect it and nor, in reality, do Opposition Members.

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps I can answer that question. It was, perhaps, unwise from the Minister's point of view for him to ask it. The answer is given by the Building Societies Association. It says that the comparison is not a proper one, for four reasons. First, it was clear that, eventually, the miners would return to work, whereas many of those who become unemployed have little prospect of finding employment. Secondly, miners are generally well paid in comparison with their housing costs. Thirdly, the large majority of miners probably have substantial equity in their properties because they purchased them some time ago or because they purchased council or former National Coal Board houses at substantial discounts. Finally, in areas where there are substantial concentrations of miners, there was little point in a building society trying to protect its security by taking possession of a property because it would have been almost impossible to sell. I hope that the Minister will accept that, for all of those reasons, the comparison that he is trying to draw is utterly invalid.

Mr. Major: I do not accept that in any respect.

Mr. Winnick: The Minister has egg all over his face now.

Mr. Major: It is equally clear that people who are unemployed, irrespective of whether they return to work—most of them do within three months, as the hon. Gentleman knows—are certain to return to benefit after 16 weeks, which is a far shorter time than it was envisaged the miners would take to return to work. The facade that the hon. Gentleman tried to construct can be shown to be collapsing. There is also the question of equity between low income families in and out of work. That point cannot be lightly brushed aside.
Mortgage interest tax relief is available to all families whether in or out of work, but social security help applies only to those without jobs. There is an imbalance in support there. The present supplementary benefit guarantee of 100 per cent. help with mortgage interest payments from the first day on benefit is much more than a family in work can expect through mortgage interest tax relief. Obviously, the present guarantee includes meeting domestic rates in full. These are generous arrangements and, indeed, as the Building Societies Association in its publication in January said:
they are almost certainly the most generous in the world with respect to borrowers who are unemployed.
Opposition Members will undoubtedly be pleased to know that. The change we are making does not significantly alter that position, but it removes some of the present imbalance in state help available during the relatively short initial 16 weeks period covered by these regulations. I emphasise that it is a short 16-week period.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: The Minister spoke about equity between the unemployed and low-income home owners with mortgages. Does he accept that the Government's benefits review team recommended that mortgage interest payments should become eligible for housing benefit to overcome that inequity? The Government rejected that recommendation. Does the

Minister further accept that progressive cuts in rates assistance through housing benefit have penalised precisely the people about whom he is talking—low-income home owners? They are getting less and less help with their rates because of the three successive cuts in housing benefit on rates. It is completely fraudulent and hypocritical to talk about favouring equity between the group whom the Government have disadvantaged and the unemployed.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing arguments which we may deal with on Thursday when we discuss uprating and contributions. We shall undoubtedly discuss such matters when we deal with the regulations that will be taken at that time.
The cost implications of the housing benefit review team report render it wholly out of court for us or any other likely Government on the horizon. The hon. Gentleman will know better than most for a variety of reasons — some understandable and some less understandable — of the substantial demand pull on expenditure that has been wrought on housing benefit over the past few years. It is now a substantial burden on the Exchequer and taxpayers. When one reaches the point where one in every three families is subsidised in housing benefit by the other two—this is not the subject of tonight's debate—one wonders whether the system is proper and sustainable. I do not believe that it is. [Interruption.]
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to return to mortgage interest and the subject of tonight's debate, I shall happily give him the floor, but I suspect that he proposes to stray on to Thursday's debate. I undertake that I shall give him an opportunity on Thursday to make those points, if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Meacher: To return to tonight's debate, the Minister quoted the BSA view that mortgage interest payments to the unemployed are the most generous in the world. How can he continue to support that view and use it to support his tottering case when in answer to me he said:
We have no detailed comprehensive information about the assistance with mortgage interest payments given to persons receiving social assistance in all European Community and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries."—[Official Report, 26 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 293.]

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman mistakes the sense of my words. I was destroying his tottering case, rather than supporting mine. Anybody listening to the debate would have been aware that that was what I had in mind.
It is worth while to emphasise that the Building Societies Association has also said—this is relevant—that it will continue to help as many people into home ownership as possible. It will not hold off helping low-income families and nor will this Government, through mortgage interest tax relief, which we, at least, will keep, and through the right-to-buy schemes, which have assisted hundreds of thousands of people to own their homes, despite the blatant and continuing opposition of the Labour party. The short limitation in supplementary benefit help with mortgage interest will not impair that, and I invite Opposition Members to continue to watch with envy the progress we shall continue to make in further extending home ownership. We genuinely believe in it and will continue to promote and sustain it.
I should draw the attention of the House to five other changes incorporated in the regulations. I referred to these only briefly earlier, since they are unrelated to the main contentious change.
We do not propose to carry forward the present practice whereby interest on a loan for business purposes, which is secured on the home, can be paid for up to six months. This applies where the claimant is intending to sell the home and requires time for it to be sold. In future, help with mortgage interest will be restricted to housing-related loans only. Also, where a home includes a business, for example a guest house, interest will be met only on the part of the house used for living accommodation, where the home is treated as a mixed hereditament for rating purposes.
The third change is that powers are being taken to allow the adjudication officer to restrict benefit where the home is unreasonably expensive in relation to other suitable accommodation in the area. Benefits can be restricted already where a house is in an unreasonably expensive area or is unnecessarily large. This additional power is taken to bring supplementary benefit into line with housing benefit practice.
Powers are also being taken to enable a second or subsequent loan to be treated in the same way as the loan it replaces. This readmits people with replacement loans to benefit, following a commissioner's decision to the contrary and is wholly beneficial. I am sure that the House will welcome that.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: That is an important point and relates to the difficult case that was adjudicated on recently. Will that provision be retrospective for individuals who are caught as a result of that decision?

Mr. Major: It is probably effective from the date on which the regulations become effective, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister touches on that specific point when he replies.
The four changes that I have just mentioned were also referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee and were unreservedly supported by it. The committee also agreed that a fifth minor change need not be referred to it for consultation as it, too, was entirely beneficial. This change is to enable foster children to be taken into account when an adjudication officer decides whether or not a home is too large.
The Opposition also prayed against the associated regulations — the Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1986. This must have been a reflex action. Those regulations simply ensure that the existing arrangements for instituting the direct payment of mortgage interest to the lender will continue unchanged. Without them, claimants could face the prospect of having their payments made direct, even where they had paid over the full amount of the interest included in their benefit. That would be a tighter regime than we want since we believe that claimants should generally be responsible themselves for their dealings with their lenders and for their mortgage interest repayments. Therefore, I suspect that the Opposition may not wish to press that prayer to a Division.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the regulations that distinguishes between different types of mortgages? I am thinking of the insurance endowment mortgage, where

all payments are made on interest, and ordinary repayment mortgages. Will everybody be treated in the same way as they are now?

Mr. Major: There is no distinction.
I believe that the draft regulations represent a package of limited measures that will have a limited effect and, in the case of the main changes, for a limited period only. They will not have the dire consequences predicted by Labour Members, but they will achieve a fairer and more reasonable balance of responsibility between borrowers, lenders and taxpayers. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The Opposition have already made clear their unequivocal repudiation of the regulations, on the ground that they victimise the unemployed by threatening them with the loss of their home, on top of the loss of their job. Nothing that the Minister said tonight has altered that central fact.
Last week some of my hon. Friends and I said that the measure would cause evictions and family break-ups for the unemployed. Significantly, the Minister was unable to deny it. I do not believe that he could deny that tonight either. We find it almost inconceivable that the Government should insist on going to such lengths to hound the unemployed in order to save £23 million. That is a drop in the ocean compared with the £4·75 billion of mortgage interest tax relief that is handed out unconditionally each year to owner-occupiers, however well off they are.
The regulations will come into effect on 26 January next year. The new year message of this kick in the face for the unemployed is that the Government's discrimination against the unemployed seems to know no end. The unemployed have had their benefit cut by this Government, and it has also been taxed for the first time. Some £3 billion has been clawed back in tax off unemployed benefit since 1982. The unemployed have had their entitlement to earnings-related supplement abolished and under the proposed Fowler Social Security Act they will be forced to pay 20 per cent. of their rates out of supplementary benefit reserved for food, clothing and daily necessities. They now face the risk of eviction and being made homeless.

Mr. Winnick: Apart from the repeated lie that the Labour party is against owner-occupation, whereas Labour Governments have successfully taken measures to increase people's opportunities of owning their own homes—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] During the 1960s, under the option mortgage scheme, and other schemes, which made it easier for people on limited means to buy homes which they could not have afforded before.

Mr. Wigley: And build houses.

Mr. Winnick: As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we also built houses.
Does my hon. Friend agree it is unfortunate, sordid and disgusting that the measure—which the Secretary of State was not willing to introduce personally this evening—hits people who need every form of income that they can possibly have when they become unemployed, when they are most vulnerable and when they desperately need


to retain as much income as they can out of their limited benefit? The Government are hitting and penalising people who are made redundant through no fault of their own.

Mr. Meacher: That is entirely true. That is the main thrust of the Opposition's rejection of the regulations. Compared with the Minister's extremely bland glossing over of the effect of the regulations as a minor measure that will have hardly any effect, I suggest that the regulations will have a devastating effect on many ordinary families.
Let us consider two examples. First, a family consisting of husband, wife and two children with a £16,000 mortgage, at present makes interest-only payments of £26 a week. Its supplementary benefit is just under £69 a week. As a result of the regulations that family will have to find an extra £13 a week to pay the building society. That is nearly one fifth of its weekly income.
My second example is that of a couple with a baby and a £30,000 mortgage. Such a case is quite common in the south-east. At present that family makes interest-only payments of £49 a week. If the payments were halved, the family would have to find £25 a week extra for the building society, which would amount to two fifths of its weekly income. If the capital repayment element is also included—as it must be—the family would need to pay the building society more than £32 a week. That works out at more than half its income having to be paid to prevent its falling into arrears. I wonder how many Conservative Members who will no doubt obediently follow the Whip tonight, would impose such punitive sanctions on their married children and families if they became unemployed and had no other source of income.
It is clear from those examples that it is highly unlikely that unemployed families affected by the cut will be able to make the payments from the weekly benefits. Cuts of a quarter to a half of income will clearly make it impossible for people already on the poverty line to manage.
In his statement last week the Minister repeated—and he repeated it again tonight, because I suspect that he has precious little else to fall back on—that the Building Societies Association will respond to changes "sympathetically and responsibly". We may be forgiven for thinking—and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is of this opinion—that such assurances have been given to the Government by the Building Societies Association regarding the proposed changes. In fact—and perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, because this is a serious matter—I understand that there has been no formal contact between the Government and the Building Societies Association about the proposals. The assurances that have been referred to appear to have been lifted by Ministers from the BSA's response to the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security" published more than a year ago.
I fear that the Minister may have misled the House by suggesting that specific assurances about the operation of the proposals had been given by the Building Societies Association. From my information, it appears that no such assurances have been given. If the Minister wishes to intervene to deny that, I would be glad to give way, because that is a significant and important point.

Mr. Major: Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I need do no more than quote from the Building Societies Association's press statement, which is a public document. It states:
Societies will do all they can—

Mr. Meacher: When was the statement dated?

Mr. Major: It is dated after my statement last week. It claims:
Societies will do all they can to help people where benefit is restricted, and there is no reason to expect that people will lose their homes as a result of this measure.
That was the Building Societies Association statement on the mortgage interest decision, published last week.

Mr. Meacher: That does not involve any formal contacts or detailed discussion between the building societies and the Government.

Mr. Major: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I should like to finish. We are simply considering a statement made by the BSA. I should like to know what evidence exists that the building societies will be able to carry out the Government's wish. Frankly—I shall quote the evidence shortly—I do not believe that will happen.

Mr. Major: The statement from which I quoted a moment ago was supplied by the Building Societies Association's head of external relations, with specific authority to be quoted. I have quoted it with that authority and it has been published. Meetings took place between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Building Societies Association some time ago. Subsequent meetings were held in August, November and December 1985, and there was informal contact prior to the SSAC consultation in May 1986. Over a substantial period there have been a series of discussions about this and related matters. I have quoted from the press statement issued by the BSA, and that is clear and unequivocal. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Meacher: I shall also provide my quotation from the BSA. The real attitude of the building societies is different from that which the Government have described. In its recent report on mortgage arrears the BSA said about the present mortgage interest payment system:
If this benefit had not existed"—
and it is this benefit that the Government are proposing to cut—
the rise in unemployment would have led to a much greater increase in arrears and possessions and this would have led to a slump in property prices locally and possibly nationally as well.
The Government are whistling in the wind when they claim that lenders will cast a blind eye or readily accommodate reductions in payments.
I want to cite two reasons for that which I believe convincingly refute the Government's facade of optimism. One of the Government's own social security policy inspectorate, which found that even under the present rules only two thirds of claimants who had asked for a temporary reduction in their mortgage interest had been granted one. One third had not. The other is the recent Shelter survey, which found that nearly 60 per cent. of local authorities explicitly ruled out a temporary suspension of payments. If local authorities adopt such attitudes, I am sure that other lenders will certainly take an even less charitable view, especially the finance and loan houses that operate on the fringe of the mortgage market.
What is most worrying is the fact that mortgage arrears are already rising steeply. In 1979 there were 8,000 loans in arrears over six months. The number is already, even before these regulations, over 60,000 a year. Similarly, properties taken into possession by building societies as a result of arrears have already risen eightfold since 1979. The number is now over 20,000 a year. In the past year it has risen by 50 per cent. and in the next year it can be expected, as a result of the measure, to grow by a further 100 per cent. It is impossible for the Government to lay claim to the idea of a property-owning democracy or to belief in family life when they allow those trends to continue, let alone exacerbate them. These regulations make nonsense of such claims.
Hon. Members will have seen the briefing from the National Council For One Parent Families, which details the cases where single parents will suffer drastically from the measure. The briefing concludes:
We cannot believe that the Government could have intended to jeopardise family stability and add more separated, deserted, divorced and widowed mothers and their children to the ever-lengthening list of those who are homeless and forced into unsanitary, temporary accommodation for indefinite periods.
That is exactly the effect that this measure will have.
It is not only that. What is so harsh about the measure is that it is so discriminatory. At present, those with incomes around £100 a week get only about £3 a week in mortgage interest tax relief. Those with incomes over £30,000 a year, which includes members of the Cabinet, get 10 times as much in mortgage tax relief. It is already an excessively unfair system, and the Government are now proposing to compound the unfairness by cutting, on their own admission, about £7 a week on average from the income of families on the official poverty line. A Government who do that while at the same time allowing payment of £30 a week to people with incomes of over £600 a week cannot be said to understand the meaning of the word "fairness", let alone use it to defend their proposal.
There is no conceivable justification for this measure. In saving terms it is piffling, and in principle it is monstrous. The sole defence put up by the Government, which the Minister mentioned again tonight, is that the present system places the low-paid family at a disadvantage compared with the unemployed. The answer to that is not to cripple the unemployed, but to increase the pittance received by the low-paid family. One way to finance that, as the Labour party proposes, is to limit mortgage interest tax relief to the basic rate of income tax and redistribute the saving of £320 million, which is at present devoted exclusively to those on the highest income.
The Social Security Advisory Committee was singularly unimpressed by the Government's case on that point, although it is the only point that the Government have. In paragraph 53 of its report it states:
We are not convinced by the arguments relating to equity between owner-occupiers on benefit and those in low-paid work.
One of the bizarre aspects of last week's exchanges after the Minister's statement was that the Minister kept calling in aid the SSAC report as if it supported his case. In fact, it does the exact opposite. The conclusion of the report, in paragraph 54, states:
The borrower with a 100 per cent. mortgage, or with little equity in the property, may find his lender is unwilling to accept interest-only payments, let alone half of the interest payment. The deserted wife may find that there were arrears

on the mortgage before she came on to benefit and her lender is unwilling to allow further arrears to accumulate. For claimants like these in a period of trauma and stress the restrictions may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, tilting them so far into debt that eviction and repossession are inevitable.
Those are not the words of the Opposition seeking to stir up political strife. Those are the considered words of a very careful and relatively modest body, the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is the Government's own advisory body. Nothing could be clearer than what the SSAC says there. It reinforces its earlier judgment in the fourth report last year, when it said:
We do not think that a scheme of this kind could be justified at all, unless the building societies and other mortgage-giving bodies were prepared to give comprehensive assurances about the availability of rescheduling".
Not only have they not been prepared to give comprehensive assurances, but they have not been consulted to any significant extent during the last year, presumably because their hostility was already well known.
Nobody supports this measure. The building societies do not support it, nor do the independent Institute of Housing, the local authorities, the National Consumer Council, or the SSAC. It may scarcely fulfil its minimum objective of making savings, since the cost of mortgage repossession often falls indirectly on the public purse, and homeless families are then allocated local authority housing under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1976. The average saving of £170 per claimant will then be swallowed up by the hotel bill for the first week.
This measure may not even achieve its purpose of increasing the incentives for the unemployed to return to work. If the loan were rescheduled at a higher rate when the four-month period was over, the rescheduled payments could rise to a level which those on low wages would have difficulty in paying. The claimant would then have less incentive, not more, to return to work.
This is a nasty and vindictive measure that will cause intense hardship for 75,000 families, including eviction for many of them. It will generate insecurity among hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers facing the threat of unemployment and all that might follow. It will make building societies less willing to lend to low-paid and single parent families, and it will greatly worsen the discrimination and unfairness of mortgage aid as between the favoured rich and those on the poverty line. Savings amounting to mere £23 million cannot possibly justify such consequences or such suffering. These regulations should be immediately and unreservedly withdrawn.

Mr. Peter Fry: I do not intend to emulate the lurid language of the spokesman for the Official Opposition, but I think that I should express the degree of disquiet that is felt by some Conservative Members about the proposed changes to the regulations.
When the changes were announced earlier this year it was my misfortune to appear that day on a television panel programme. The first questioner asked the panel what it thought about the changes. After I had listened with growing incredulity to what was said about them, I said that I could not vote for the changes. The response to what I said then was remarkable. Not one person had a good word to say for the proposed changes.
Why should that be? Most people are genuinely concerned about the effects of unemployment and the


problems that it creates. Millions of people also fear that they will be make redundant. The last few years have shown that very few sections of our society are immune from the threat of unemployment. Buying a home is the largest single purchase that most people make. I accept that very few people will lose their homes, but the proposals present a considerable threat to every homeowner. They cause additional worry at a time when the Government ought to be trying to reduce worries rather than to add to them.
I am sorry that I have to be so critical. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled knows that I hold him in high regard. I am also aware that he had to pick up this issue and carry it when he gained his well merited promotion. I appreciate that the Government have made some changes which they genuinely believe have improved the original proposals. But I want to deal with some of the points made specifically by my hon. Friend the Minister in his statement on 10 December.
First, he asserted that the change would affect only new cases. None the less, if it comes into effect on 26 January 1987 as proposed, a considerable number of mortgagors who have no protection against unemployment will be affected. It is clear—as was mentioned earlier in the debate—that many will have no insurance policy to protect them. Perhaps they should have such a policy. Indeed, I would always advise it, but the fact remains that many borrowers will still find themselves without any protection perhaps because they are already fully stretched by their mortgage payments.
If my hon. Friend had reported to the House that he had been in contact with the building societies and the banks and that they had agreed to insist on some sort of insurance cover as a prerequisite of a loan, the regulations that he has suggested could apply to all new loans from January next year, but not to existing loans. I for one would have accepted such a change as it would not have been retrospective. I have no doubt at all that many of the people who will be affected by the changes are those who have not taken advantage of any insurance scheme.
Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned that many of the claimants would be unemployed for only a short time. None the less, even on his own figures, they amounted to about 75,000. Any period of unemployment of more than a few weeks is bound to have a drastic effect on a family's net income. In any event, the 50 per cent. of the unemployed who do not leave the register within three months will suffer the most, not only as a result of this measure but because of their longer-term unemployment.
However one considers it, the change will hurt people who are already vulnerable and who may well have to sell their homes. If the solution to the problem raised by the changes is to add the unpaid interest to the outstanding debt, those unfortunate people will find that when the home is eventually sold any balance left over will be that much less, thus worsening their financial plight.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend mentioned the improvements that have been made to the original proposals. By and large, I welcome these. He mentioned, for example, the safeguard for those over the age of 60. I acknowledged that that is helpful, but how realistic is it? Alas, we all know that most people over 50 who lose their jobs are unlikely to find another job that will pay as well as the one that they have lost. We must recognise that. If my hon. Friend were

to say that wherever one draws the line, someone will be hurt, I would say that it might have been better not to have proceeded with such ideas in the first instance.
Fourthly, my hon. Friend referred to the savings that will be made—now about £23 million as opposed to the £30 million that was originally considered. Miraculously, £7 million has already disappeared. If £7 million can go so quickly why cause so much fuss over the remaining £23 million because, after all, that £23 million will cause considerable suffering? Why should my hon. Friend and the Government give such ammunition to Opposition Members on such a tender issue, when the Conservative party believes passionately in home ownership? This has been a tactical error on the part of my right hon. and hon. Friends because it has distorted what in so many other areas is a first-class record of caring for people. Indeed, our record in expenditure is one of which we can be truly proud. That is why I am all the more sad that the proposals have been brought forward.
Fifthly, my hon. Friend said that the building societies will be concerned and will treat those who are unfortunate with special regard. It is clear that Her Majesty's Government expect the building societies to pick up part of the responsibility that the Government have had hitherto. The most likely outcome is that the unpaid interest will be added to their capital debt. That may or may not happen. Any change in the payments of the unemployed to their lenders automatically breaks the existing agreements on mortgage repayments. There is no guarantee that the lender will necessarily agree.
I also noted that my hon. Friend said that advice would be given to borrowers who might find themselves in trouble. I do not know what he finds, but in my constituency I find that those who get into the most trouble are those who do not immediately ask for help. They get into a terrible mess and it is in such cases that eviction often takes place. Therefore, it will not be possible to cover all those cases with the kind of assurances that my hon. Friend gave.
It is not always the friendly building society that is the lender. It could be a Japanese bank, and what assurances have we had from foreign banks which have given loans to people in Britain that they will behave in the same way as the building societies? My hon. Friend said that he was hopeful that the building societies would act in the right way. He should be using the word "helpful" rather than "hopeful", because help is what people who are unemployed want.
Despite all those points which arise from what my hon. Friend had to say, my main objection is one of principle. I hope that when my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary replies he will tell me why, if I pay rent, no matter how long I have been out of work, no matter whether I have never bothered to find work, that rent will be paid. But if I have done what the Government have asked me to do and become part of the property-owning democracy, I shall suffer as a result of the proposal before the House tonight. There is a matter of principle there and it is on that question of principle that I feel strongly.
The answer that my hon. Friend the Minister has previously given on that point is that the home buyer shares in the capital increase in the value of his home. All I can say to him is that if he goes to Aberdeen or Merseyside he will discover houses which have dropped in


value over the past few years. The owners of such houses will feel pretty sick if they become unemployed and suffer as a result of this proposal.
No, I cannot believe that the measure is essential or necessary. It saves little money. My hon. Friend used the word "limited" on at least three occasions—a limited measure for a limited period affecting a limited number of people. If it is that limited, why have we got it at all? It is unnecessary and the amount that we are saving is insignificant. It will cause additional problems for thousands of home buyers who have been doing what the country wanted them to do. It will offend even more. It will offend all those who fear unemployment and it will reinforce those who accuse the Government of being uncaring. This is an unnecessary and unwise change in the regulations. The Government's attitude will not be understood and as a result there will be considerable political damage. Therefore, despite my high regard for my hon. Friend, if he is determined to press ahead, I for one shall be in the other Lobby tonight.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: By no means is this the first debate on this subject, because it comes at the end of a long and rather sorry series of debates based on the Government's plan to change assistance with mortgage interest for people on supplementary benefit. It was heralded in a social security Green Paper published more than 18 months ago, and at that time the measure was universally condemned. It was repeated in a slightly more restricted form in a White Paper published about a year ago and once again it was condemned, even though by that stage the measure had been rather watered down.
Last summer there was a debate in the House in which the watered-down measure was again universally condemned by hon. Members in all parts of the House. Now we are presented with a further watered-down proposal and once again it is receiving widespread condemnation. Surely the Minister must be aware that he has made a mistake—or, to be fair to him, that his predecessor made a mistake in proposing this in the first place.
It is a bad proposal and it should be withdrawn. There should be no more watering down in an attempt to save face. Despite that watering down, the measure is still very damaging. It will create increased debt problems and adversely affect the unemployed. Not only will they suffer the shock of job loss: they will also face the shock of having to meet their mortgage repayments. Although the Minister will argue that after 16 weeks mortgage payments can be made, there is, firstly, the problem of that 16 weeks to get through; during that time many people will feel deeply worried about going increasingly into debt and having no means of covering it.
Secondly, some people will never be able to recover. As an example, let us look at the single parent left alone after a marriage breakdown, which is one of the main causes of mortgage difficulties. Where the partner also has a share in the equity of the house, the financial arrangement necessary to ensure that the woman can remortgage the property in order to keep herself and her children in the matrimonial home is often a finely balanced financial judgment. If it succeeds, it may avert the problem of homelessness, the loss of the home and all the traumas associated with that, and the consequence of a local authority having to pick up the family as homeless. In

present conditions that family would probably be put in a bed and breakfast hotel at vastly greater cost to the state than the cost of meeting the mortgage interest in the meantime.
It is in that area that the measure is so foolish, shortsighted and damaging. It is precisely in such marginal cases that the absence of 16 weeks of benefit could well tip the balance between keeping a family together, thereby avoiding homelessness and keeping them in the matrimonial home, or losing the home and going through the horrid, traumatic experience of being homeless. As I have already said, that costs the state rather more than the mortgage interest payments. By itself that is a strong enough reason for the Government to reconsider.
Why are they pursuing this damaging proposal? The argument put forward in the past and advanced in this debate by the Minister is that it has to do with equity and with home owners on low income in work who do not get the same assistance. For that reason, say the Government, there might be some unfairness. As I implied in an intervention from which the Minister did not take my point, this argument is unconvincing, because it comes from a Government who have cut housing benefit assistance on rates to home owners three times in the last three years. There were cuts in 1983, increasing the taper, and cuts in 1984 and in 1985. Three successive cuts affecting home owners receiving assistance through housing benefit show the Government's lack of concern for people on low income in work who are trying to cope.
The Government refuse to accept the recommendation of their own independent housing benefit review body which argued precisely on this ground of equity that mortgage interest payments should qualify for assistance as part of the housing benefit scheme. The Government claim to be concerned about equity for low income home owners, but rejected that sensible proposal which would have given extra assistance to precisely the group of people about whom the Minister is trying to shed crocodile tears. The Government's case is false and fraudulent. It is about cuts, not equity. It is yet a further example of social security cuts, and this time they bear on home owners who are in difficulty. It is a regrettable and deplorable measure. It would be bad at any time, but it is especially bad now, given the trend in mortgage arrears, foreclosures and repossessions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to the dramatic increase in the number of home owners who are six months or more in arrears with their mortgage. There has been an increase from about 8,000 in 1979 to over 66,000 now. The number of home owners whose homes are being repossessed because they could not maintain their mortgage payments has increased from about 2,500 in 1979 to 20,000 in the last 12 months for which figures are available. It is all very well for the Government to say what they have done to promote home ownership, but they have presided over an unprecedented increase in the number of home owners who are getting into serious debt and losing their homes. They should be paying attention to the problem and doing something to tackle it.
Instead, the Government are introducing a measure that will make things worse for low-income home owners on supplementary benefit. To take away assistance from these people at this time is crass, mean-spirited and entirely untimely. If the Government intended to tackle the problem of equity between low-income home owners in


work and those on supplementary benefit protection, which is an important safety net to prevent homelessness, and seek to improve the position for low-income home owners in work, perhaps by making mortgage interest payments eligible for housing benefit, they would pay for that and make a saving by the simple expedient of restricting mortgage interest tax relief to the standard rate of income tax, which would hurt no one on an income below £20,000 a year. Savings could be made, the poor could be protected and no one on a low income would suffer.
That is the way in which the Government could proceed if they wanted to act in the interests of equity. Unfortunately, they do not want to do that. The Government are interested only in imposing cuts. These are damaging cuts and I fear that they will exacerbate the rising tide of homelessness among home owners over which the Government have presided.

Mr. Eric Forth: I apologise for not being in the Chamber throughout the opening speeches. I was detained elsewhere, but I came into the Chamber as soon as I could.
I welcome the measure and I welcome also the way in which my hon. Friend the Minister has introduced it. It is a signal of the Government's recognition of the balance that has always to be struck between the responsibilities of taxpayers and those who are in receipt of benefits. No responsible Government can avoid or evade that responsibility.
There is no point in any of us pretending that everyone can always be a recipient of unlimited largesse. We must recognise always that the resources that are available to any Government are inevitably limited. The art is to balance what is fair and reasonable with what can be made available to those most in need and those who are less in need.
We are talking about those who have undertaken the responsibility of home ownership. I stress "responsibility" because embarking on home ownership, which we have rightly encouraged and in which we have been greatly successful, involves much responsibility. Anyone who undertakes home ownership stands to realise a capital gain. He stands to make a profit, which I welcome and applaud, and he will be given tax relief on his mortgage payments, which I applaud also, but he must accept the responsibilities that go with that.
I do not believe that anyone in this place would expect to take the responsibility of home ownership without taking on the reasonable responsibility of insuring against misfortune. One example would be to insure the building and another would be to insure the contents. Everyone must face the requirement of taking every reasonable precaution against loss of employment or loss of income.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I have been listening with fascination to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Can he tell me where attention was drawn in Conservative party election leaflets or in his manifesto for the 1983 general election to the risks that are involved in home ownership as against the advantages?

Mr. Forth: I shall not be drawn into the old red herring of what is or is not in the manifesto. It must be perfectly

self-evident that, when one undertakes the challenge and opportunity of home ownership, certain responsibilities go with it. Nothing in this life—in spite of how Opposition Members might wish to kid themselves and, more important, other people—is without risk or responsibility. Home ownership comes into that category.
One must take reasonable measures to protect oneself and one's family. A range of insurance policies and opportunities are available to provide protection against precisely, for example, the loss of employment. I see no reason at all why anyone who is prepared to take on home ownership, accept the mortgage tax relief that goes with it, and accept the possibility of tax-free capital gains on their home, should not at the same time take on the responsibility of providing adequate and reasonable protection for themselves and their families against whatever misfortune may befall them. There is nothing wrong with that. It must be encouraged.
We cannot allow people who take on home ownership to look to the taxpayers, through the benefit system, to cover them in any or all circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked why people who rent their homes are not provided with the same sort of opportunity. It is precisely because people who rent do not stand to gain from the capital appreciation of property and do not enjoy the benefits of home ownership, whereas those who involve themselves in home ownership do so. That is why there is an important distinction. It is one that, regrettably, my hon. Friend failed to make.
The role of building societies has been mentioned at several points during the debate. Surely it is important that people understand the role and relationship of building societies with whom they undertake a contract. It is important that we understand the responsibility that building societies have within society, not only to have a commercial and contractual relationship with the people who come to them for loans, but to expect that, if misfortune befalls them, they will take a reasonable attitude. There is every evidence that responsible building societies have undertaken this attitude and have been able to help those who have fallen into misfortune.
No building society gains by peremptorily dispossessing someone of their home should they encounter misfortune after a short time. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government and for my hon. Friend to look, first, to the home owner to provide for his own future and, secondly, to expect building societies to have a reasonable relationship with those who accept loans from them. Only in the last resort should the taxpayer be expected to stand behind these people and provide them with protection.
The measure that my hon. Friend has brought before the House today provides a correct and reasonable balance between the responsibilities of home owners and taxpayers. That is why I welcome and support this move.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) suffers from what I would describe as an extreme case of Joan Collins's disease—uttter, abject divorce from reality. Little in the hon. Gentleman's comments suggests any sympathy for or comprehension of either the philosophy that his own Government have preached since 1979 or the


reality of those who find themselves unemployed and who, under the strictures of this measure, as from next month will be considerably worse off.
I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who described this measure as shabby and squalid. Although I do not wish to make personal remarks about the Minister, I can hardly think that he is particulary proud of the task that he has to perform tonight in the name of Her Majesty's Government. The best that can be said about the Minister, his performance and his case is that his heart is not in it. That is the charitable interpretation. I hope that, before the Division, he will have the courage to discover the convictions that were expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry).
Why is there so much against the philosophy of the Government? It should not be lost on Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, that a Government who spend so much time rightly encouraging and rightly giving people opportunities to enjoy home ownership and responsibilities must themselves carry certain responsibilities. In any proper society that operates, such as this one does, under the theory of contract, responsibility has to be a two-way process. The Government have led the horse to water, but instead of enabling it to drink they have cut the rope and let the cask fall into the well. That is not fair on those who are in a vulnerable position and who are unlikely to be able to support themselves as a result.
Why is it so wrong for the Government to encourage home ownership and then to introduce this measure? I refer to a report of April this year by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, entitled:
Mortgage Arrears: Owner Occupiers at Risk ".
The report made this important point:
Local authority borrowers have lower incomes than borrowers from banks or building societies. Low income has been shown to be closely associated with repayment difficulties. If building societies continue to have plenty of funds for lending 'downmarket'"—
I do not like that phrase; I should prefer "on the financial margins"—
and to right-to-buy purchasers, local authorities will find themselves even more in the position of lenders of last resort, with a higher proportion of high-risk borrowers than formerly. This will tend to exacerbate their arrears problems.
That is precisely what is happening. As a result of the measure, local authorities, under the right-to-buy legislation, will be faced either with heavier arrears on their own account, which is bad enough, which will show up in their spending programme and, in turn, will feed through to the Government's controls on local authority expenditure, or there will have to be more repossessions. If there are more repossessions, local authorities will still have to pick up the tab to a greater extent, because they will have to add those same people to already stretched waiting lists.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Conservative party has been trying to run a campaign against councils which have not been so harsh in collecting rents as it would like and have allowed those who cannot pay to run up arrears? Will the councils which have allowed owner-occupiers who borrowed from them to run up arrears of interest charges be subject to the same attack? Will they be attacked as loonies of the Left?

Mr. Kennedy: Far be it from me to come to the defence of the loonies of the Left, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase. The illogicality of what the Government are doing, in introducing the principle of the right to buy and then this measure, inevitably will lead them to introduce further measures later or take legislative steps along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that he is foreshadowing something that will come in due course, although I hope that that will not happen, as he hopes it will not. That is the illogicality of the Government's position in a nutshell. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I refer to a point made by the Minister. Nobody denies that there is a responsibility to take on home ownership. We hear that more efforts should be made with mortgage insurance arrangements. It is an easy, throw-away phrase to say that all prudent people would take such steps. However, let us look at what the Institute of Housing has to say. It has considered that aspect carefully. It asks that
assistance with interest payments be continued at the same level for the meantime. It considers it unlikely that mortgage insurance arrangements, in their present form and premium level, could fill the gap provided by supplementary benefit for either the long-term unemployed or low-income owner occupiers.
The Minister is putting much stock on people taking out private insurance schemes. What does he say to the Institute of Housing, which I assume he accepts speaks with authority? It says that in that respect the Government do not have a leg to stand on.
My next point has been alluded to already and I shall not dwell on it. In regard to single parents, we are talking not just about those who become unemployed and who will have to experience the effects of the regulations in the first 16 weeks, but about the large group of people who are not in employment but are not, perhaps, technically registered as unemployed, such as many categories of single parents. The Social Security Advisory Committee said:
The deserted wife may find there were arrears on the mortgage before she came onto benefit and her lender is unwilling to allow further arrears to accummulate. For claimants like these in a period of trauma and stress the restrictions may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, tilting them so far into debt that eviction and repossession are inevitable.
The National Consumer Council said:
The safety net provided by mortgage interest payments to those owners faced with unemployment or relationship breakdown is crucial in avoiding repossession and homelessness during the early stages of default when financial problems may escalate to such a level that it becomes impossible to recover from them".
All those points made by a wide range of organisations run completely against the Government's arguments and make nonsense of the points which the Government have been trying to drum up to support their view.
I wish to raise a point about the part of Britain that I represent. I think that my experience is not dissimilar from that of other hon. Members. In the Grampian area in Aberdeen and in the Highlands, which are heavily dependent on the oil industry's fortunes, there has been a considerable boom in the property market and escalating property prices as a result of first, the high salaries which have been paid in oil-related activities and, secondly, the influx of people associated with such activities. The dramatic slump in oil-related activities has resulted in the property market being in a state of complete collapse and,


therefore, building societies repossessing in considerable numbers and tremendous financial difficulties being encountered by many people.
Although salaries for many categories have been higher than the national average, many people on average salaries have become unemployed, without the benefit of golden handshakes to tide them over the 16-week period which the regulations will affect. They are suffering genuine hardship. Several sources in my part of the country confirmed today that the number of repossessions in the Highlands—where repossession is less of a problem than in the Grampian region and Aberdeen—has increased considerably. This measure will greatly exacerbate that trend. It is not in any way sensitive to the peculiar problems of a region which is heavily dependent upon the fortunes of one industry, which, because of the slump, is suffering considerable difficulties.
Among those bodies prominent in submitting evidence to the Social Security Advisory Committee were the city of Aberdeen housing department, the Grampian welfare rights project, the Grampian regional social work department and Scottish Women's Aid. The slump in the oil industry is a large part of the reason for those submissions. I should be grateful if the Minister would announce what flexibility there is in the regulations to take account of that part of Britain.
The Government argue that the measure will increase incentives to assist people in becoming re-employed. The SSAC makes it clear that that is unlikely to happen. It has pointed out:
If mortgage interest is not met for an initial period on benefit, but instead an arrangement is made to reschedule the loan at a higher amount once the period is over, an owner-occupier claimant could well have less incentive to return to work.
Again, the SSAC has contradicted many of the Government's points.
I echo the general points made in the debate. The bigger the mortgage, the bigger the tax contribution and the greater the relief to those in work. That sits oddly with encouraging those at the top in order to hit hardest those at the bottom. That is why my colleagues and I agree that tax relief on mortgage interest should be restricted to the basic rate. That view is based on the very principle of equity that the Government make so much play of in these regulations. Consequently, we utterly oppose what the Government are doing. The regulations are wrong in principle and, moreover, they are even worse in practice. If the Minister and his colleagues had any sense of governmental decency or felt for the human dignity of those affected, they would withdraw them tonight.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The regulations involve the sum total of £23 million per year, and it is legitimate to consider how that money could be used elsewhere within the social security budget. After all, great strides have been made within the DHSS, most obviously in the improvements made to the NHS.
We all recognise that there are many other facilities that could fairly lay claim to the £23 million that is available per year. It is certainly not irrelevant to remember that when considering our spending priorities. It is traditionally difficult for hon. Members to hold a rational debate on social security. However, for once the hon. Member for

Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made a comparatively restrained speech from the Labour Front Bench although it was, in its way, the traditional over-the-top performance that we are used to from him. Indeed, I sometimes think that he does more to underline how much the Government care than any other hon. Member.
I welcome some of the features of the regulations. It is now to be 16 weeks before the cut-off, as opposed to the previous proposal of six months. There is now some recognition of the mortgage trap that the SSAC pointed to. Provision has been made for intermittent claims and a special disregard was announced for mortgage protection policies. It is right to expect and encourage people to make provision against the possibility of becoming unemployed. But we should not get carried away and regard mortgage protection policies as a total solution.
In my experience, such policies are usually not long-term, not cheap and not even easily available. If they were widely issued, they would probably represent a crude application of the actuarial science and might be little different from having old-fashioned savings as a protection against the possibility of unemployment. Perhaps I should declare an interest, as I am the director of an insurance broking company. However, to my knowledge, I do not think that we have ever sold such policies, or are likely to sell many of them.
Thus, I welcome some features of the regulations and I appreciate that it is legitimate to examine how the money now spent could be better employed. But we should also have regard for the immediate consequences for those who become unemployed after the rules have changed. Several hon. Members have stressed the findings of the SSAC. One of my constituents, Mrs. Lysaght, was until recently a member of the committee and she has told me of some of her contributions towards its conclusions. The committee's report examined the earlier proposals put before it. As has been said more than once, they would not have led to any significant financial hardship. However, I tend to feel that the conclusion was rather academic, and that the SSAC was looking at the total cost of a 50 per cent. reduction during a six-month period compared with the total cost of a mortgage over 300 months of the life of a 25-year mortgage. Instead, the cost within a six-month period, or now within a sixteen-week period is significant.
In the committee's report, the example often used is of a mortgage of £16,000. I estimate that that means now a reduction in assistance of some £16·50 a week. Is that example most relevant? It does not cover every case, for the average mortgage now being taken out is significantly higher than that. Consider instead a new mortgage of £30,000, where the loss in assistance would be more like £34·50 a week which, however we describe it, will be lost for 16 weeks and never made up.
Instead of dwelling on an academic point, it might be more appropriate to look at part of the conclusions of the SSAC. Paragraph 54 refers to the position of young families with large mortgages, borrowers with high mortgages and deserted wives are quoted as an example. That paragraph has been quoted in part before, but I shall quote more of it, for completeness. It says:
For claimants like these in a period of trauma and stress the restrictions may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, tilting them so far into debt that eviction and repossession are inevitable. Others may struggle to continue paying the full amount of interest during the first six months causing hardship to the family.


The use of that word "hardship" can be compared against other quotations about "no significant financial consequences".
It is argued that these are short-term effects, but this is a continuation of the academic argument. Beyond the 16-week period, it is envisaged that the interest is rolled up and capitalised against the debt and those still claiming beyond 16 weeks will be assisted in full. Part of paragraph 53 is relevant to set against that proposal. It says:
We regret that, as in other areas of supplementary benefit, the claimant who gets into debt may be entitled to extra assistance while the claimant who cuts down on other areas of expenditure to avoid going into arrears in the mortgage will gain nothing for his pain.
This must be true, for in arriving at the calculation of £23 million available for reallocation, allowance has had to be made for the effect of roll-up beyond the 16-week period.
The regulations are now to provide for housing-related loans only, excluding business use, whether for separate business premises or business premises within the house. This may be simple to operate, but it may not. The new restrictions where housing costs are unreasonably high in comparison to similar suitable accommodation in the area worries me. I readily recognise that there is the opportunity to appeal against the decision on either or both of these points. I suggest that we should be concerned about the element of hardship here, particularly in an area of high unemployment. That high unemployment may have come about suddenly, resulting in an inability to sell because of the lack of purchasers. The use of the words "in comparison to" similar suitable accommodation will have to be taken into account in any determination of claims under the latter headings.
My hon. Friend the Minister has rightly had regard to equality of treatment between those in and those out of work, but that is not the only comparison that can be made. I see in the SSCA's report that supplementary benefit claimants in rented homes will continue to have their housing costs met in full. Is that fair or equal? I think not, but I am not advocating a change for rented accommodation
Above all, I am concerned about the anxiety and trauma of unemployment. In every other way, the Government are doing all that is possible to encourage and facilitate a return to employment. This change is bad psychology. It is no exaggeration to say that it places a sword of Damocles over the family home. That fact is accentuated by this being a change in the rules. If there were no provision in force, we might have to consider comparisons as to the generosity of the arrangements.
Somebody who is trying to promote a new invention and wants to set up with some colleagues who have already invested quite a substantial amount of money, visited my surgery on Saturday morning. It is an interesting product called Safetyflec. It is a marvellous product which will make an excellent contribution to motoring safety. All Government Departments should consider it for their cars. My constituent said that he and his colleagues had "put our houses on the line." I should have thought that all of us would want such an endeavour to succeed, but what a demotivating factor these proposals are.
The Government's proposal is not the right psychology and it is wrong for a variety of reasons. I wish that there was an opportunity to change minds, but if the die is cast, I am afraid that I will not be able to support my hon. Friend the Minister on this one.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) will have the courage of his convictions and not just refrain from voting with the Government. I hope that he will vote against them.
It is difficult to believe that this is our last week before Christmas, because there is very little of the Christmas spirit about the regulations. For a mere £23 million, we are screwing some of the most vulnerable people in society.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) said that it was the responsibility of individuals to take out insurance policies to protect themselves in the event of unemployment. No doubt he advances the same argument in regard to ill health and other misfortunes that can hit people. I shall enjoy using his speech in the general election campaign and telling poor people who are out of work and scraping together every penny to pay the mortgage because they are in fear of losing their home that the answer of Conservative Members is, "Tough. You should have taken out an insurance policy." There is a charitable spirit for people who are suffering! They are often the very people who followed the Government's advice and bought their own homes. I support home ownership, but we must also have policies which underpin people when they lose their income and are unable to pay the mortgage.
We have 20 per cent. unemployment in my constituency. Major capital construction schemes ended, and young people who followed the Government's advice and bought homes are now out of work. They cannot sell because their mortgage is higher than what they can get for their home. One building society out of eight in Caernarfon has 50 people who are caught in that trap.
So dire are the circumstances that, on 19 November, I wrote to the Prime Minister drawing her attention to this serious difficulty. In her reply, which I received today, she said:
Building Societies are well aware of the need to maintain the prudence they have traditionally shown in their lending policies.
I do not remember her telling people that when she urged them a few years ago to buy their homes. The letter continues:
Recent speeches by the Governor of the Bank of England, the Chairman of the Building Societies Association, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury have reinforced the message that over-generous lending criteria are not necessarily in the best interests of the lender or the borrower.
No doubt that is right, but it is not very good saying it now to people who are out of work, own a house, have high mortgages and are unable to pay. They will be much worse off as a result of the proposed change.
A married couple with two children who have a £15,000 mortgage will lose about £12·50 a week in interest payments. That, together with a £3·50 repayment, makes a burden of some £16 a week on that family. The long-term supplementary benefit rate is £48 a week plus £10 for each child, which makes a total of £68. The burden placed on such families is £16 out of that £68. Moreover, many of them are young people who do not have resources behind them and have high mortgages.
One of the industries in my constituency where the Government urge people to work is the tourist industry. Those who work there often do so for three or four months a year. Because of the regulations that relate to seasonal workers, those people will not receive unemployment benefit, but will depend on supplementary benefit. On a


cyclical basis for four months every year they will lose out on part of their supplementary benefit. In other words, this is a positive disincentive to working in the tourist industry. Let that message go home in my area and elsewhere where there are many people on low incomes and the areas depend on tourism.
We have many people who depend on Manpower Services Commission schemes. We know that when they come out after a year they will rapidly face supplementary benefit after a period on unemployment benefit. Single parents are in a most invidious position.
The regulations should be rejected by the House tonight. I hope that the Minister will have the decency to withdraw them. If not, I hope that Conservative Members will stand up for those people whom they have urged to be home owners and ensure that they are not trampled on by this measure.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am unhappy with these proposals, but for a different reason from that of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I do not consider them to be particularly fair or reasonable in view of the fact that the Conservative party and Government have always encouraged people to buy their own home. As those who bought their homes were given no warning that this might happen, and as they were not encouraged to take out a mortgage insurance protection plan, this seems unjustifiably hard and mean.
This morning I heard the Minister on "Breakfast Television" making a clear case, but many people who become unemployed do so through no fault of their own. I can speak from personal experience. I found myself redundant at two days notice when I had a brand-new house and had just entered into a mortgage arrangement. Without the help of my parents and wife who was working—no thanks to Robert Maxwell, who was my employer—I would have been in grave difficulties.
Robert Maxwell may be known for many reasons, but he certainly did not pay us as and when required. I had to sue to get my redundancy pay and there was no money coming into our household. I urge my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to remember that being unemployed is not always a self-created state. In some case it takes a long time to get the money through and while waiting for it, the last thing one wants to worry about is finding additional funds.
I appreciate that the Exchequer will pay 50 per cent. of mortgage payments, but that is to address the problem from the wrong side. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider that, as some of the funds paid in supplementary benefit have been abused, the money should be paid directly to the supplementary benefit claimant's building society. That would ensure that there would be no abuse of that money.
We must give great consideration to those who may, justifiably, feel let down. I acknowledge that the concession made from 6 months to 16 weeks is a step in the right direction. The regulations will cause trouble outside the House and several of my constituents have already expressed concern, as has my Conservative association, that something should be done to ensure that in future when people buy their houses they will not face any disincentive.
We are still trying to encourage people to buy their homes, but this will deter people from doing so. While the building societies will never repossess, I am particularly worried that people who believe in a property-owning society—those in the Conservative party and in government—will feel particularly discouraged if these regulations are passed. I urged my hon. Friend to reconsider. I regret to have to inform him that I cannot support the Government tonight.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This has been a most constructive and interesting debate. I concur with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) in asking what it is about the festive season that brings out the worst in the Government. Perhaps they think that most people will be too busy celebrating to notice what they are doing.
According to the Government's own figures, the average cost to the families affected by the proposals will be a loss of more than £10·50 a week. Even those proposals show that either the Government miscalculated the effect and the figures that they first gave or they misinformed the Social Security Advisory Committee because the figures are higher than those upon which the committee's remarks were based.
The Government have argued that the proposals are necessary because people need an incentive to return to work. As the advisory committee stated, if it is believed—many of us do not believe this—that it is an incentive that is lacking rather than the opportunity for work, that incentive exists because only interest, not capital, payments have been met from supplementary benefits. There is no necessity to increase that so-called incentive. In fact, the way in which the regulations are likely to work suggests that there will still be an incentive to stay out of work if that work is low paid, because otherwise people affected by the regulations are likely to lose.
The reasoning and the timing of the proposals are extraordinary. They come at a time when figures for the number of people losing their homes through defaulting on mortgages doubled last year. The targeting is even more extraordinary. It is bad enough to save £23 million at the expense of the unemployed but to save it also at the expense of single parents, the sick and disabled is the action of a Government bereft of reason.
The few Conservative Members who spoke in favour of the proposals suggested that there was no problem because mortgage protection policies are available. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), whom I am glad to see in his place, raised that point, as did the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is no longer with us. Both hon. Members have their facts and figures wrong.
A survey of building societies has shown that less than 10 offer mortgage protection policies of the kind quoted by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. They are offered only with restrictions, such as no payments whatsoever for the first nine weeks of redundancy. The Minister's figures were also wrong, because he quoted premiums for a policy such as I described of £10 a year whereas the figure given by the Building Societies Association is £10 a month. That may not seem much to hon. Members but it is a substantial sum to many individuals.
Both Conservative Members to whom I have referred ought to have the wit to realise that the people who most need these policies are those least likely to be able to obtain


or afford them. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what he expects the cost of the special disregard of income from these policies to be which the Government have written into the regulations. That will give us some idea how widespread the Government expect these policies to be.
There have been a number of very courageous speeches from the Tory Benches. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) quoted the fact that it is during the early stages of redundancy that financial help is most vital because that is the stage at which problems escalate to a point from which it is impossible for families to recover. That point is endorsed by the National Consumer Council.
The hon. Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) said that the Government have consistently claimed to be the friend of the home owner. That claim needs to be amended. The Government are now the friend only of the home owner with secure employment. Under this Government, that is a small and diminishing group.
The Social Security Advisory Committee has been much quoted this evening. I should like to make one last quotation from it:
while we are not convinced by the arguments on equity and incentives which have been advanced in support of these proposals, we acknowledge that the Government is desirous of making savings.
The only reason for the changes is the wish to save £23 million. It is impossible to call that a justification, because injustice runs through every line of the proposals.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): The opening words of the debate for the Opposition contained the usual gross exaggeration from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and were followed quite soon by the usual special pleading by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). As one would expect from the Social Democratic party there was much talk of rights and responsibilities, with a keenness for rights, but very little keenness for responsibility. All that was in marked contrast to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). When one comes to serious discussions of the issues one has to look to the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).
There are three true issues. There is the question of fairness between lender, borrower and taxpayer, the question of hardship and homelessness, so grotesquely exaggerated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and the so-called question of the paltry £23 million, as if £23 million grows on trees. It does for the Opposition and the pseudo-Opposition who seem to spread the mortgage tax relief about 10 times over.
I shall first deal with the fairness between lender, borrower and tax payer. I commend to my hon. Friends the fact that if someone on average earnings were to go out of work for a short term—just three months, that is what this measure is about — and one compared his position with someone on three quarters of average earnings, his net earnings for the year would be exactly the same. However, the person who had been toiling on and whose taxes would be paying the benefit would be £1,000

—to be strictly accurate, £988—worse off than the person getting the benefit. It is not fair to the low income taxpayer in work.
On the question of hardship and homelessness, I simply remind Opposition Members of what has been said by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It said that in most cases there was no reason to expect any significant hardship. It said that when the figure was six months, and before we secured the mortgage interest trap point. It is now four months. When one talks of evictions it is flying in the face of what is said by the building societies. They have made it entirely clear in their recent quotable statement that they will do all they can to help and there is no reason to expect that people will lose their homes as a result of this measure. There is also no reason to expect that local authorities will behave any less responsibly.
On the matter of the "paltry" £23 million, I ask my hon. Friends to consider the good measures we are taking or proposing to take. For example we are easing the capital rule to encourage thrift and raising it by a sliding scale from £3,000 to £6,000. There is the increased help we announced in the summer for the elderly in nursing homes and residential care homes and the increased help we are giving to the severly disabled by the severe disablement premium. Those measures cost respectively £10 million, £20 million and £10 million. It is that sort of priority we are freer to deal with.
This is a fair and reasonable measure. The regulations will not cause significant hardship and will not cause eviction or homelessness. The building societies have made their position clear on that. The regulations achieve a fairer balance between lender, borrower and taxpayer and they yield worthwhile savings, helping this Government, who have increased social security benefit spending by no less than 35 per cent. in real terms — £4 billion on increased benefits, £4 billion for more payments to the elderly, long-term sick and disabled and low-income families in work — to target help where it is most needed. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 193.

Division No. 43]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Alexander, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Budgen, Nick


Ancram, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Arnold, Tom
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Chope, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blackburn, John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cope, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Corrie, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Couchman, James


Bright, Graham
Crouch, David


Brinton, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dickens, Geoffrey






Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Robert
Lord, Michael


Durant, Tony
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lyell, Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Evennett, David
Macfarlane, Neil


Eyre, Sir Reginald
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Farr, Sir John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Favell, Anthony
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fletcher, Alexander
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McQuarrie, Albert


Forman, Nigel
Major, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marland, Paul


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Marlow, Antony


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gale, Roger
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Newton, Tony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Norris, Steven


Hayward, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Henderson, Barry
Ottaway, Richard


Hickmet, Richard
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hind, Kenneth
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Howard, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Rathbone, Tim


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irving, Charles
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Nicholas


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shersby, Michael


Key, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Speed, Keith


Knowles, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tracey, Richard


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lilley, Peter
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Waller, Gary





Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)



Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, John
Mr. Francis Maude and


Whitney, Raymond
Mr. David Lightbown.


Wood, Timothy





NOES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Forrester, John


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Freud, Clement


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fry, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, W. E.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Godman, Dr Norman


Bell, Stuart
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gould, Bryan


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hancock, Michael


Blair, Anthony
Hardy, Peter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boyes, Roland
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hoyle, Douglas


Bruce, Malcolm
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kennedy, Charles


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clarke, Thomas
Lambie, David


Clay, Robert
Lamond, James


Clelland, David Gordon
Leadbitter, Ted


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ronald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Coleman, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Loyden, Edward


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Hugh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Craigen, J. M.
McGuire, Michael


Crowther, Stan
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dalyell, Tam
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McTaggart, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Madden, Max


Deakins, Eric
Mallon, Seamus


Dixon, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Dover, Den
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dubs, Alfred
Meacher, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Michie, William


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
O'Brien, William


Faulds, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fisher, Mark
Park, George


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert






Patchett, Terry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Pavitt, Laurie
Rowlands, Ted


Pendry, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Penhaligon, David
Sheerman, Barry


Pike, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Prescott, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Radice, Giles
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Randall, Stuart
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Raynsford, Nick
Skinner, Dennis


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Snape, Peter


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Soley, Clive


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Spearing, Nigel


Robertson, George
Stott, Roger


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Straw, Jack


Rogers, Allan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)





Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Woodall, Alec


Wallace, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wareing, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Michael



White, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Allen McKay and


Wilson, Gordon
Mr. Chris Smith.


Winnick, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Housing Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is not desired to proceed with the prayer.

Fishing Industry

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals by the Commission of the European Communities set out in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's two unnumbered explanatory memoranda of 10th December 1986 on 1987 total allowable catches and quotas, and in the Ministry's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 9th December 1986 on the EC-Norway fisheries agreement; of European Community Document No. 10549/86 on 1987 fish guide prices; and of the Government's intention to seek improvements in the proposed arrangements for the benefit of the United Kingdom fishing industry consistent with the requirements of conservation of fish stocks.
Before I deal with the detailed proposals before the House this evening I should like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make one or two more general remarks.
First, we should see the coming negotiations on total allowable catches and quotas against the general background of the common fisheries policy and the developments over recent years. There is no doubt that over the past few years the United Kingdom's fishing industry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members kindly leave the Chamber quietly, please?

Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that over the past few years there has been a considerable improvement in the state of the United Kingdom's fishing industry which went through a difficult time, not least because of the closing of its traditional fishing grounds in Iceland and elsewhere for the far distant fleet.
Prices obtained by fishermen are now higher than ever, thanks partly to a buoyant demand for fish in our increasingly health-conscious society, while the price of oil, which is one of the industry's main costs, is down. Increasing interest is being shown in the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels, and that is surely a sign that the industry is in good heart. I am not suggesting that there are not still considerable problems, and we have some major problems of restructuring, but the truth is that there is a degree of confidence in the fishing industry which is greater than it has been for some years.
The common fisheries policy is in good shape and some considerable improvements and changes have taken place, not least because of the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister during the six months of the British presidency. We are now able to say that Britain's influence on the common fisheries policy has brought about major changes, all in the direction of conservation, which we could not have expected had we looked forward from July when we took over the presidency.
I remind the House that we now have an effective method of Community policing and that the Community can close fisheries where over-fishing has taken place, countries which have not obeyed the law up to now are beginning to take very much tougher measures. Both the Dutch and the Danish Ministers have had to take measures which we in Britain have taken for granted for years. Now the Danes and the Dutch have to bring home those measures to their fishermen.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the conservation measures

proposed by the Community could considerably harm Scottish fishermen, who have consistently kept to their quota targets? If other countries in the EEC continue to break the targets, Scottish fishermen will be greatly penalised.

Mr. Gummer: In the past there was some justification for the argument that British fishermen, in general, as well as Scottish fishermen in particular, obeyed the rules perhaps more clearly than did other countries. I am impressed by the number of countries which have considerably improved their rules about fishing. I have already mentioned the measures taken by the Dutch Minister. The Dutch are now firm about the way in which their fishermen keep to the rules, and at long last the Danes have taken steps to implement the rules.
Given the improvement throughout the Community, my hon. Friend will agree that it is important to have rules that can be obeyed. We must be able to make people pay for over-fishing, and my hon. Friend will know that if a country over-fishes, and as a result has to close its fishery, it will have to pay back that surplus fish in the succeeding year to countries which have not been able to take their full catch. That is crucial and will deal with the problem we all know about—that our total allowable catches and quotas have been less than they ought to be because other countries have been taking too much fish. Because of that we had to have lower quotas. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that things will now be much better as a result of our hard fight.
The first three documents mentioned in the motion before the House were recommended last week by the Select Committee on European Legislation for the consideration of the House. At this time of year there is always a problem about the timetable, and last year we were unable to have the debate before the Fisheries Council meeting. The Council meets tomorrow to deal with TACs and quotas.
We cannot start negotiations with third countries until we have the full scientific evidence and recommendations on the amount of fish that will be available. We cannot accept that evidence any earlier, because if we did it would not be up to date and sufficiently accurate. We then have to negotiate with third countries, especially with Norway, in whose waters there are a great deal of the fish that we take, and we have to do that before we know how much will be available to divide among the fishermen of the Community.
I should like to thank the Select Committee on European Legislation, because it accepted the problems, met the deadlines and was prepared to make its decisions and investigations on inadequate information. It was the best that we could do, but the Select Committee was willing to accept that, and I am sure the House will agree that there is no way of doing it better without impairing our ability to make the right decisions for our fishermen. If that is the choice, we must put our fishermen first. We must accept that the debate has to take place speedily and that we must embark on the necessary research and read the papers rapidly.
Despite the evidence of rush in the procedure, the Government believe that it is preferable from the point of view of the House to have the opportunity to debate the Commission's proposals before they are discussed within the European Community, and those discussions will start tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State


for Scotland and I shall be advancing the United Kingdom's case and fighting for British fishermen over the next two days, and we welcome the opportunity to learn what the House feels about the various proposals that are before us. As three nights have passed since I slept because we have been discussing agriculture in the Community, I hope that the House will forgive me if I am not as quick off the mark as usual if 1 am asked questions while going through the proposals.
The procedure last year was not ideal and we have tried to improve it this year. I am sorry that everyone has been asked to do things more quickly than any of us would like. I am disappointed, as I know the whole House will be, by the proposed levels of total allowable catch for the main white fish stocks in the North sea. The TACs have emerged since the Commission's consultation with Norway. Last year I had to be extremely critical of the way in which the Commission entered into consultations with Norway. I had personally to introduce the issue into the debate because I believed that the Commission had carried on its negotiations with little discussion with the British Government or any other Government. If we are to have that sort of negotiation, it will not help.
This year there has been dramatic reform. I can make no complaint about the way in which the negotiations have been carried out or the way in which we have been kept informed. I think the House will want to know that the new Portuguese Commissioner and his staff are clearly determined to do their job well. I say that because occasionally we find ourselves criticising those who deal with Common Market matters. The new Commissioner has been extremely helpful, and likewise he was helpful to the fishermen of England and Scotland during his visit to Britain. That has been his approach since he has learnt something about our problems.
It is disappointing that the stocks have proved less resilient than we had hoped for, and the need for firmer management and conservation measures in protecting the future viability of the fisheries has become imperative. I know that I shall carry the House with me when I say that we must put conservation first. The problem is that there is no doubt that in the past we have allowed ourselves to be gulled by the argument that if we set a higher total allowable catch than that urged by the scientists, there will be more fish to share out among the member states and everyone will feel better. Feeling better, however, they go to fish the fish, and the fish are not there. That is an unacceptable way in which to run a common fisheries policy. The policy is a great success because we make decisions fairly among ourselves, rather than hitting one another over the head with a marlin spike to enforce individual wishes. We must be honest with one another.
Unfortunately, the scientific evidence is worrying. For North sea cod, the proposed total allowable catch for next year is down from 170,000 tonnes, which was a difficult figure last year, to only 125,000 tonnes. That is the highest tonnage that the international scientists have been prepared to envisage. It would be possible for the United Kingdom to argue that the British fishing fleet could not manage on 125,000 tonnes, but I not prepared to advance that argument. If I did so, I would be saying to our fishermen, and to their children, that we are not prepared to protect their future, when we have the clearest evidence that we should do so. I am prepared to consider the evidence in the best possible light, but not with rose-tinted spectacles. I shall consider it in the best way that can be

envisaged, but it would not be proper for us to try to push up the TAC. If we did so, we would be denying our fishermen a future, and the same would apply to their children.

Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend was helpful with a recent problem affecting some small fishermen along the south coast. As he examines this difficult matter, will he consider the possibility of trying to find some flexibility for smaller fishermen, who cannot readily move to waters with a wider variety of catch, for example, by allowing exemptions for boats of 10 m and less? That might help to meet some of the problems that are peculiar to smaller fishermen.

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks on the question of cod on the south coast. I have found that the most difficult thing in the job of trying to look after the fisheries in the United Kingdom is that every section of the fisheries industry has a different interest. The problem is that it is not a sort of homogenous family to which one can say, "All right, you have got that lot." There are all sorts of perfectly reasonable arguments between fishermen about natural historic waters, the size of boats, their need to get a certain catch to make larger boats viable — all those issues. Another problem is that of the quality of fish. Those who produce the best quality of certain kinds of fish in one area are different from those who produce the best quality in other areas.
I promise my hon. Friend that I shall continue to try to get the balance right. We are looking carefully again at the way in which we manage the quota referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall). There is a great worry about that quota. We got it right every year before now. This is the first year that we have got it wrong. In future, it may never be like it was this year. If we change the system, we may find that we do not catch the cod that we could have caught from these much lower total allowable catches, that is a worrying thing. I shall certainly examine the point that my hon. Friend raised.
The fishermen would prefer us to get it right by being tough this year rather than continuing to have a declining biomass and smaller and smaller year classes. We have secured an increase—although it is not a big enough one—in the minimum mesh size for the North sea next year to 85 mm. The Commission has proposed a seasonal closure in the German bight in the first and last quarters of 1987 to protect the young cod. We shall support that proposal, although we must recognise that difficulty that it will entail for the industries of some other member states:
Last year I warned that we got the TAC for cod wrong. I fought against it being as high for Britain as it was last year because I thought that it would cause damage. I am afraid that my worst fears have turned out to be right. In the case of North sea haddock, I am less happy with the scientists' recommendation. It seems that it is difficult to accept that, last year, we could have 239,000 tonnes and this year we can have 120,000 tonnes. On the surface, I find that recommendation difficult. Like all those of us who are not scientists, I cannot say that I can guess better than scientists can.
I intend to support the Commission in the slightly more optimistic figure that it has suggested of 140,000 tonnes. That figure is agreed with Norway. We thought that it


could be a little more, but that would be a matter of non-scientists trying to find an answer. We shall try to secure a review of the TAC early in the year, so that if a real and practical view of the scientists' ability to forecast enables us to be a bit more helpful, that is what we shall do.
I do not honestly think that I should go further than that. If I do, I should cast into doubt the whole of the conservation proposals and measures. We have been the leaders in Europe for the conservation of the fishing stocks. We have the greatest interest in conservation because we have the largest amount of stocks. We did an extremely good deal when it came to the sharing out of fish stocks. Therefore, we need to remember that conservation does us more good than any other country in the European Community. Even those among us who do not share my enthusiasm for the Common Market can at least share a kind of patriotism that will enable us to be on the same side on this occasion.
The proposed TAC for North Sea saithe is also down to 170,000 tonnes. Again, the need for restraint is clear in the interests of future conservation. In this case, it is probable that the figures are not wrong.
The whiting TAC has been held at the present level, and plaice is due for a further reduction. I have to support that. It has been largely the depredations of the Dutch that have put us into this position. I have had a long series of talks with the Dutch Minister in what are referred to as the margins of the Agriculture Council, which has been sitting for 90 hours, so there are fair margins in which to have a chat. He has made valiant efforts to make a change. He admits that there are real problems because of the over-provision of boats in Holland, about which we warned the Dutch. We told them that if they did that, they would end up with far too large a fleet, with far too little to catch. It is not the Minister who made those decisions. He has taken some brave and tough decisions himself, and as a result is extremely unpopular among his fishermen. He has not been in the fishing Ministry very long, and his fishermen appear to want to make sure that he will not be there much longer. It is nice to see a Minister who is unpopular for the right reasons. I hope that it will happen to more of us, on those matters anyway. We must be pretty tough about the plaice. We are reaping the damage done by others, but they are putting their house in order, and we must support them in what they do.
North sea sole is not a joint stock. The Commission proposes that we should follow the full rigour of the scientific advice by cutting the TAC, which was reduced last year, in half, from 20,000 tonnes to 10,000 tonnes. I must mention my interest, in the sense that, as the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, I know only too well the problems that too low a sole quota could pose for our fishermen. My family knows too well that I do not pick from Aldeburgh and Felixtowe the sole that I would like to choose. I cannot believe that we should take lightly the danger for that stock, although we shall reconsider whether there is any possibility of even the slightest increase in that quota.
I am sorry that it takes a moment or two to do this quick Cook's tour of our fishing areas. I now move across the North sea to area VI, the west of Scotland. The Commission proposes reductions in the TACs for cod, haddock, anglerfish and megrim, which are all important to our fishermen, although the scientific basis for those changes is not as clear cut as in the North sea. I am sure

that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), will be anxious to pursue any opportunities for adjustment in the proposals. He will start off the negotiations tomorrow, and I shall join him after the agriculture statement tomorrow afternoon. The two of us expect to go through the night. One of the things that we shall work closely on is what we can do in that area, where there is some room for manoeuvre, but we must be careful to do it in a way that does not undermine our position on other matters.
In area VII. I am particularly aware of the importance of the sole and plaice stocks to our fishermen in the west and south-west. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has pointed that out to me regularly. I have been to that area four or five times since I have been responsible for fisheries. What had to be done has been clear to me. I am glad to see that the combined United Kingdom quotas proposed for sole and plaice are up, by only 65 tonnes and 70 tonnes respectively, but that is a sufficient amount. At least it is better to go in that direction. There may be some scope for further upward adjustments on individual stocks. The precautionary TACs proposed on angler fish and megrim are down. We shall do all that we can to improve availability. The proposed TAC for cod is down, despite the evidence that this year's limit was unduly restrictive of effort in all member states. We shall look for some easement. It looks as if we have been a little over-cautious. Therefore, I hope that we can do something better there.
I am pleased at the sizeable increase in the TAC on hake, and therefore also in our quota, which will be welcome, not only for our own use. On occasion we have found that hake is also liked by others, and we are able to do the sort of deal that helps our fishermen on that front.
The stocks in areas VI and VII have been subject to quota for the first time this year following enlargement, particularly nephrops and pollack. We are still feeling our way. The allocation of quotas last year was on a provisional basis only. We aim to ensure as far as possible that our fishermen's needs are covered fully.
Western mackerel is a fishery of major importance to our pelagic sector. Rather surprisingly, the Commission has proposed a reduction in the present availability to a level below that recommended by the scientists. I believe in conservation but not in masochism. It would be better to try to do something about this. The problem is that there is clearly over-fishing by certain member states, and it continues despite the efforts of some Governments. This is a control problem. I want to improve control rather than say that the amount available to our fishermen must be cut.
I am sorry that this has been so rapid a tour of the fishing grounds. No doubt some hon. Members found that I was not able to mention their particular fishing interests. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will answer the points that are raised.
Changes in the guide prices for the 1987 marketing year have been recommended for our consideration by the Select Committee. That is a separate matter. The Commission's proposals are in three parts, but only the first is of interest to the United Kingdom, because it covers the species caught by our fleet; for example, cod, haddock, herring and mackerel. The proposals are broadly neutral, suggesting for most species increases in the range of zero to 2 per cent., although there is a proposed reduction of


10 per cent. for herring. The proposals take account of the Community's budgetary problems, the overall reduction in inflation rates and the consequences of green rate changes, from which all member states will benefit next year, except Germany and the Netherlands. The proposal for herring reflects the increased availability of this species on the world market and the significant increases in the available catch next year.
There are, of course, difficulties in obtaining agreement on prices for a wide range of fish species, but it is important that we should do so, so that the new guide prices can be brought into operation on 1 January. It should be possible to finalise an agreement close to the Commission's original proposal at tomorrow's Council meeting.
All is not right, and we shall have to take very tough decisions on some matters. They must be taken wherever the scientific evidence is clear. The great achievement of the past six months and, indeed, of the whole common fisheries policy, is that we now have a forum in which these decisions can be made in a sensible and civilised manner to protect the future of our fishermen and their sons and daughters.

Mr. A. J. Beith: When the right hon. Gentleman goes to the next exhausting round of meetings, starting tomorrow, will he take on board the concern about the sensitive areas definition and the fear, especially in areas such as the north-east of England, which are depressed by any economic standards, that boat grants will be substantially lower than in areas such as the west of Scotland as a result of the discussions that have taken place?

Mr. Gummer: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My hon. Friends from the south-west have made it to me, and the hon. Gentleman's colleagues from the north-east have said the same. It is a fact of life that, if an area is designated as needing special help and is given special help, others not so designated find themselves at a disadvantage. I understand the problems. We shall consider ways to help areas that might be unduly hurt by the comparison. The situation is difficult. The hon. Gentleman will know that national rivalries and histories are involved, not the least of which is the fact that the English fleet suffered most from the ending of the availability of the cod fishery off Iceland. It has taken longer for the English fleet to begin to find a new place for itself, and therefore it finds it difficult to accept occasions of this sort. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who, of course, has a particular interest in Scotland, will agree that there are particular problems of this kind.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Labour Members are glad that we have the opportunity to debate these matters before they are finally negotiated in the Fisheries Council, unlike last year. I appreciate the Minister's comments about having to rush his consideration of these matters, but it has been of concern to all of us and to the industry that we are embarking on this debate without having seen the documents, which were only received by the industry on Friday. That made consideration difficult, and I hope that we have as much information as possible in future.

Mr. Gummer: indicated assent.

Mr. Randall: I appreciate the Minister's agreement.
There is a general feeling in the industry that 1986 has been quite a good year. The drop in oil prices reduced operating costs, and the firm prices of fish in the market place meant that incomes were high. However, there is still a substantial problem of indebtedness in the industry, especially in England and Wales, where many of the fishing vessels are antiquated and under-engined and do not compare in efficiency with part of the Scottish fleet or with some of the fleets of our European partners.

Mr. McQuarrie: Although the hon. Gentleman says that there are problems only in Wales, he will no doubt accept that the same problems apply to Scottish fishermen. They have had to replace their old vessels so that they can catch fish in our difficult seas.

Mr. Randall: I am interested in that intervention, but I referred to part of the Scottish fleet. Although there has been considerably greater investment in total in Scotland compared with England and Wales, I understand that parts of the Scottish fleet still need investment and still have inefficient and old vessels.
However, the point is that poor profitability has led in general to under-investment and to unacceptable levels of inefficiency. Further massive strides need to be made by the industry in the marketing and quality control of fish. In 1986, only a small percentage of the total amount of fresh fish was sold in supermarkets. I believe that there is immense scope for enhancing the marketing and sale of fresh fish. The sale of pelagic species, however, and particularly of herring, could have been more successful in terms of income if outlets other than the monopolistic eastern European klondykers had been available to the industry.
In 1986, there has been more optimism and higher morale in the industry. However, the industry believes that the quotas that the Government have negotiated for 1987 will have a very damaging effect because of their severity. I noted carefully what the Minister said about conservation. However, that is what the industry is saying, and it is important that we should put on record what those involved feel. The question of severity applies in particular to cod and haddock, because there will be cuts of 25 and 30 per cent. respectively for the 1987 quotas. As a result of the cuts, the loss of income to the industry has been estimated at about £40 million for 1987.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is unable to attend the debate, but he has expressed serious concern about the impact on the fishermen of Great Grimsby, and in particular about the simultaneous effect of the cuts in the cod and haddock quotas, which are the main white fish sources. He believes that the industry should be financially compensated by the Government because of the severity involved.
The core of the common fisheries policy is fishery management and enforcement. As we all know, the policy has been in operation since early 1983. However, if it is to be successful, seasonal closures of some fisheries may be necessary to ensure that juvenile species or stocks are not damaged. Moreover, control over mesh size must be enforced. I understand that the French are still not doing that satisfactorily, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that member states should do more to stop such abuse.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Dutch. We know that in practice they are still landing


more than their allocated quotas and that must be cut out. The Irish could also do more on enforcement. I understand that in some sectors the United Kingdom fishery protection personnel spend more time boarding British vessels than boarding vessels of all the other EEC countries put together. I would like the Minister to explain why he is permitting this behaviour while abuses by other member states still take place.
In relative terms, I understand that the efforts and resources provided by the other member states in enforcement is not as great as that provided by the United Kingdom. Are not these shortfalls in resources accounting, at least to some extent, for the breakdown of the quota system? I also understand that the Commission has produced a paper that highlights some of the enforcement problems associated with the common fisheries policy, and provides information on what needs concentrated attention. Will the Minister tell us more about this and about what he expects to ensue from it?
In addition, a set of control regulations, to which the Minister did not refer, which deal with matters such as overfishing and quotas was recently agreed. What worries me about this system is that, if certain unscrupulous people or member states purposely break quotas, innocent people as well as the guilty can be penalised and lose their livelihoods. I would appreciate it if the Minister would comment on what I believe to be a serious matter. It is wrong to have a system that creates such anomalies.
A notable characteristic of the common fisheries policy are the substantial fluctuations that we get in the annual quotas. This year is no exception. We have had big reductions in cod, haddock and other species. This is clearly undesirable for the industry and could make investment programmes difficult to implement. I do not want to take the time of the House analysing all the reasons for these large quota fluctuations. However, the methods of the marine scientists in assessing fish stock levels are regarded as imprecise, as an art rather than a science. It should be added that the quality of estimates and research is related to the amount of resources. Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient resources are being devoted to this work?
The fishing industry is concerned that the marine scientists have not yet been able to complete their work on haddock levels and have had to produce a temporary quota for 1987. As the Minister has pointed out, this will be reviewed in May. Does the Minister have any views about stabilising total allowable catches? The industry has suggested that consideration should be given to setting TACs for three years rather than one, and that variations should not exceed 20 per cent. I would welcome the Ministers' comments on these points.
The United Kingdom quota for the important species of cod has been reduced from 76,000 tonnes for 1986 to 55,000 tonnes for the coming year. This is a cut of about 25 per cent. in the United Kingdom fishing quota. In 1986, the industry was unable to make up all its quota because of over-fishing and hence poor catch rates. The fish were just not there to be caught. The industry seems to have accepted that the TACs for 1987 will have to come down, but the total EEC TAC of 125,000 tonnes for 1987 compared with 170,000 tonnes for 1986 is regarded by the

National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations as being too severe for the industry to cope with. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation also supports that view.
I believe that the industry is anxious to appear responsible, but it believes that another 10,000 tonnes of cod could be added to the United Kingdom 1987 quota without imposing unreasonable strain on the quota management regime. The NFFO believes that the proposed quota will force fishermen to break their quotas, which could result in discarded fish, which is bad for conservation and entails a loss of income to the fishermen.
I would welcome the Minister's comments on the common sense of increasing the quota by 10,000 tonnes, although I noted what the Minister of State said about conservation. I understand that the marine scientists proposed to Fisheries Ministers a partial—I think six-month—closure of the Heligoland and German Bight fishery for conservation of cod during the spawning period. Why was that important recommendation rejected?
As for haddock, there is considerable alarm in the industry that there is to be a cut in quota of about 30 per cent. for 1987. The total TAC will drop from about 230,000 tonnes for 1986 to about 140,000 tonnes for 1987. The United Kingdom quota will drop from about 151,000 tonnes to about 101,000 tonnes. The industry feels that there is a much stronger case for increasing the quota for haddock as stocks are regarded as stronger than was estimated, especially as the scientists admitted that they made an error when estimating the number of juvenile fish in 1983.
The industry will lose a substantial amount of income as a result of the cod and haddock quota reductions because the prices for those species are so high. That will create difficulty for the industry in the coming year.
I understand that it has been agreed that the scientists will carry out the review of haddock stocks in May to see whether the TAC can be increased. Why can it not be done now? I should like an explanation from the Minister. That would enable fishermen to plan their fishing for the year much more effectively, whereas a change in May will introduce special difficulties.
Does the Minister accept the case for relaxing the haddock quota by about 20,000 tonnes? Is that not specially desirable, bearing in mind the fact that the cod quota has been cut? Perhaps he will tell us why he appeared to be taking such a strong line on that species.
The quota for saithe has been reduced from 20,300 tonnes in 1986 to 16,200 tonnes for 1987. Why? Does the Minister realise that saithe is an important home water species for the larger vessels from ports such as Aberdeen, Fleetwood and Hull? Fishermen in those areas will be hard hit by the quota reduction.
Plaice and sole quotas are also being reduced. I have been led to believe that there is a reduction in sole catches because of the uncontrolled development of the Dutch beamer fleet. What is the Minister doing about the relaxed enforcement by the Dutch Government of quotas on that species? Although discussions with the Dutch are taking place, I believe that much more progress must be made. Perhaps, when he is sleeping tonight, the Minister of State will dream how he will deal with the problem of the Dutch.
The pelagic fishermen seem not too unhappy with the herring deal. Norway will have about 55,000 tonnes from European Community waters, but the industry is concerned at a footnote which makes it clear that a further


10,000 tonnes of herring could be allocated to Norway. That could push the Norwegian share up to 65,000 tonnes, which would be unacceptable to the United Kingdom industry. Will the Minister clarify what that footnote is about and what the Norwegian tonnage of herring will be? Will it be 55,000 or 65,000? I should like a detailed response on that.
The United Kingdom fishing industry has been worried that during the past 18 months there has been sharp increase in the number of ex-Spanish vessels on the United Kingdom shipping register. It is estimated that by the end of the year there will be 90 such vessels. The Spanish have been fishing mainly for hake, a species in which until recently the United Kingdom showed little interest. But now the position has changed and United Kingdom fishermen want to exploit those quotas themselves. Clearly, there is a clash of interest.
Under the common agricultural policy, quotas are allocated to a particular country on the assumption that they will benefit that country. Under the present arrangement, nominal ownership of those vessels is with the United Kingdom, but beneficial ownership is with the Spaniards. In other words, the fish is being landed for Spanish markets and the United Kingdom industry is not benefiting from it It has been reported that one of the United Kingdom companies operating Spanish fishing vessels is taking the Government to court on this matter. I am not sure whether the matter is sub judice, but I would welcome the Minister telling us exactly what the Government policy is on this important matter because it affects the use of United Kingdom quotas.
An important squid fishery is the Falklands. The major problem of overfishing comes from the considerable presence of Eastern European fishermen. Licences were due to be allocated from 12 December. Will the Minister tell us what progress is being made and what the plans are for policing? [Interruption.] I accept that that may not be in the document, but Rockall squid fishery is, and when talking about squid fishing, one cannot separate one fishery from another.
Many people in the industry are worried about exploiting that fishery, but at the same time they are concerned about security. It will impede investment if we cannot be sure that the Royal Navy will lend a hand if times get tough. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the Navy is on station?
It is encouraging to see fish being promoted as a health food. That is good news. But with the proposed cuts in quotas, especially in cod and haddock, it seems likely that fish prices could rise unacceptably through shortages. Does the Minister agree that those shortages in species could dampen the demand for fish, impeding the promotional work that has been going on? I would welcome the Minister's comments on that important point.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Because of the shortage of time, I propose to deal with only one of the unnumbered documents which relates to the proposal for a Council regulation, fixing for certain fish stock and groups of fish stocks occurring in the Commission fishing zone, provisional total allowable catches for 1987; the provisional share of those TACs

available to the Community; the allocation of the share between member states in quotas; and the conditions under which TACs may be fished.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been widely accepted by the fishermen in my constituency and the rest of Scotland as being sympathetic to their cause. He will lose that respect if he is not seen to be fighting for the fishermen when he attends the Fisheries Council meeting tomorrow. The Government successfully secured the common fisheries policy in 1983 and that was hailed by the fishing industry as the greatest step forward for many years. The industry went from strength to strength, and rightly so when we consider the hazards that the fishermen have to face. However, we are now taking steps backward instead of forward on the security that the common fisheries policy was meant to maintain.
We have to consider tonight a number of EEC documents that are mind-boggling. There are also certain documents of which we have been asked only to take note but there is no real security for the fishermen because the Council of Ministers has not finalised the decisions.
I sincerely hope that the Minister who, as he has said, has not slept for three nights because of the CAP discussions in Brussels and who is to return to Brussels tomorrow to discuss the very important matter of the TACs for 1987, will read these speeches before he departs and learn of the serious concern of the fishermen of the north-east of Scotland, and especially of those in my constituency, at the proposals which can only do immeasurable damage to their livelihoods.
I want to consider the two species to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) referred, which are the mainstay of the fishermen in my constituency and which are liable to suffer in the proposals before the Community.
The first of these is haddock. The scientists say that they over-estimated the 1983 catch very heavily—by as much as 70 per cent. That, as we would all accept, was a gross error. They had to adjust downwards as a result. The scientists reached the conclusion that the haddock catch for 1986 would be no more than 140,000 tonnes for the whole Community. The same scientists have set the TAC for the Community and Norway at 230,000 tonnes. They say that on their estimates, the total TAC caught by the Community fishermen will be 140,000 tonnes,. That is absolute nonsense when we consider the facts. The United Kingdom fishing fleet alone will catch about 140,000 tonnes before the end of 1986. In addition, the Danes have 23,000 tonnes of haddock and have now stopped fishing because that is their allowable quota. On top of that, the Norwegians, French, Dutch and Germans have all been catching the quota to give a TAC of 230,000 tonnes. It is obvious that, as usual, the scientists have got it wrong.
The Scottish fishermen cannot deal as the position stands because that would mean a loss in catching of something like 45,000 tonnes. They have always been accused of going to Brussels seeking a rise in the TAC. Last year it was not the fishermen from Scotland or the United Kingdom who wanted a rise in TAC. It was the scientists who fixed the TAC in the upward direction. Naturally, the fishermen accepted that.
That only highlights once more that the scientists got it wrong. Why is that the scientists can get away with a TAC reduction of some 50 per cent. when the fishermen cannot accept that level of fishing as being sufficient to


gain their livelihood? That is no way in which to run an industry. A cut of some 50 per cent. in normal production in any industry would cause serious problems. That industry could not hope to succeed. No one could hope to continue to run such an industry. Why has no one asked the fishermen what they think? At the end of the day, who goes out to fish? The scientists do not go out, looking into scientific registers. The fishermen go out into the deep waters. They know where the catch is to be found. Why do the scientists continually fail to ask the fishermen to give them their views on this matter?
Although I am aware that the massive cut will be resisted by the fishermen, they are the first to admit that conservation must be securely considered. I am sure, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has said, that if a realistic figure such as 160,000 tonnes was proposed for the TAC for the Community, the Scottish fishermen would be prepared to go along with it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend who is to reply, since my right hon. Friend has left us to get some sleep so that he can bring pressure on the Council tomorrow morning, will be able to tell the United Kingdom fishermen that they will accept that we require a TAC of 160,000 tonnes. I hope that that will be my right hon. Friend's objective when he goes to Brussels tomorrow along with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The second species I want to deal with is cod. The TAC for the current year for the Community is 170,000 tonnes. The deal proposed for 1987 by the Community is 125,000 tonnes. The 170,000 tonnes included not only the Community, but Norway. The original recommendation made by the scientists was 150,000. However, the scientists are now proposing 125,000 tonnes.
It is recognised that cod, the jewel in the crown of the fishing industry, the species of which the fishermen endeavour to catch as much as possible, has now been decimated in its quota. It is recognised by the fishing industry that there must be conservation. However, I do not consider that it is realistic to ask the fishermen to accept a cut of 45,000 tonnes in that species, which is already difficult to catch because there is so little of it. I am sure that the fishermen would be prepared to go along with a TAC of 135,000 tonnes, which is only a 10,000 tonnes increase. I must ask my hon. Friend to tell the House that that will be his resolve and the resolve of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when they go to Brussels tomorrow.
There is a precedent for that request. In the eleventh-hour negotiations last year, the North sea plaice TAC was increased by 10,000 tonnes to suit the Dutch. In those circumstances my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have a weapon they can use in getting the best cod deal for the United Kingdom fishermen, which will guarantee that they will be able to earn a living, or at least part of a living, so long as they are able to fish that species.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland addressed the Scottish Fish Merchants' Federation in Aberdeen last Friday about the processing industry. That industry will suffer very severely if the cuts are imposed by the EEC when the decision is made tomorrow. My hon. Friend said:
The successes of the catching sector should provide opportunities for the processing sector … There has been a great deal of press publicity about the probable cuts in the

total allowable catches next year for white fish, and particularly for haddock. It is understandable that the industry should be concerned, particularly the processing sector where there is anxiety about the possible employment consequences.
In a constituency such as mine, were there is a large number of processing industries, my hon. Friend has to take cognisance of his own words. There is considerable concern because there will be a considerable loss of fish coming on to the markets in my constituency and other constituencies in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We are not only talking about the fisherman, but the fishing industry as a whole, especially the processing part of the industry.
My hon. Friend then went on to say:
The white fish stocks—indeed all the fish stocks—are vital to the Scottish industry and they must be protected to ensure a continuing and flourishing fishing industry.
Is that not exactly what we intended in the 1983 common fisheries policy? That was intended to secure the safety of the fishing and processing industries for the foreseeable future.
Concern has been expressed about the haddock TAC. The scientists said that the TAC for 1987 should be 120,000 tonnes. That figure has now been increased by 20,000 tonnes. A TAC for 1987 of 140,000 tonnes is significantly greater than the TAC for 1986. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that everybody recognised that the TAC for 1986 was too high and that catches would fall far short of it.
I said earlier that there is no way in which the Community's TAC of 230,000 tonnes will not be reached. The Scottish fishing industry will certainly reach the TAC figure of 140,000 tonnes.
My hon. Friend said:
The TAC will be reviewed in the middle of next year, in the light of the final catch figures for 1986. It may be possible to increase the TAC, if the stock at that time seem healthier than the scientists currently fear.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West rightly asked why the scientists should be allowed to decide in the spring of 1987 whether the TAC should be increased. Why should not the TAC be increased now? Why should the scientists be allowed to dominate this decision? The fishermen should be consulted. From time immemorial the scientists have always got it wrong. They got it wrong last year; they got it wrong this year. Let us make sure that they do not get it wrong next year, to the detriment of fishermen in the whole of the United Kingdom, but in particular to the detriment of Scottish fishermen.

Mr. James Wallace: This debate, before the final decision is taken, is to be welcomed. The Ministers who will be representing United Kingdom interests tomorrow will therefore be fully aware of the views of right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House.
The TAC has dominated the debate so far, in particular the white fish TAC. The explanatory memorandum points out that for the main white fish stocks in the North sea the proposed TACs, and consequently the United Kingdom quotas, will be substantially lower than in 1986. Reference has already been made to the TAC for cod and haddock.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was sceptical about the scientific information upon which the TAC for 1987 has been based. The


justification for such a low TAC is that in earlier years it was overestimated. We cannot therefore be entirely satisfied that the scientific prognosis for 1987 is right. The great variation between the 1986 TAC, particularly for haddock, and the proposed 1987 TAC is causing considerable concern. The Minister said that some time next year he would try to secure a review of the TAC. However, the Opposition believe that he should try to do something about it now, so that fishermen may have some confidence about the 1987 TAC.
There should be no more than a 10 to 15 per cent. change in the TAC from one year to another. Scottish fishing merchants have said that there ought to be a flexible five-year plan that leads to much narrower tolerances from one year to another. That is an important point. That is particularly important when planning for those parts of the country that have a sectoral quota. A change as large as that proposed for 1987 could put strains on parts of country, including my constituency, with a sectoral quota.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) rightly pointed out, we should not lose sight of the implications of a much reduced TAC for the processing industry. That industry is important in providing employment around our coasts. Onshore jobs are important, and, clearly, if the volume of the catch is to be considerably reduced in 1987 it will have implications for the processing industry and the continuity of employment for those who find valuable work in such industries. Therefore, I urge the Under-Secretary of State to convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister that we hope that they will be pressing for an increase of at least some 15,000 to 20,000 tonnes more, particularly on the haddock quota.
The amount of white fish that we have been allowed obviously has something to do with a trade-off with Norway, and has certain implications for the amount of herring that will be caught next year. The Minister of State was right to say that he was far more satisfied, as I am sure the House is, with the way that negotiations with Norway have proceeded this year compared with last year. Considerable dissatisfaction was expressed last year with the powers that the European Commission assumed to agree a deal with Norway. That has not been the case this year and for that we are glad.
The agreement has been heralded as one which, on the face of it, would appear to say that this year 29 per cent. of the North sea herring stocks will be fished by Norway. Whereas last year the 40 per cent. agreement gave rise to considerable criticism within the industry, the new agreement would, at first glance, appear to be a remarkable improvement. However, in many respects it is a question of fiddling with figures. As I understand the position, the 29 per cent. is a figure based on the areas 4A, B and C in the North sea, and it is rare that the Norwegian vessels would fish in the southern North sea. If one takes what has been allowed to Norway from areas 4A and B, that goes up to 32 per cent. of the stocks. If one then takes the extra 50,000 tonnes which have been allocated to Norway, that brings the figure back up to 40 per cent. — the figure which caused so much controversy last year.
It may well be that the overall basis of the agreement for future years is a relatively satisfactory one, but we

should not lose sight of the fact that what it appears will happen in 1987 is really no better than what we had to put up with in 1986.
I hope that the Minister will say something about the efforts that have been made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority to promote the marketing of herring. The consumer clearly lost the taste for herring during the years when the herring fishery was closed. I cannot understand why, because I like herring. But there is still much to be done to promote the marketing of herring and I should like to hear what is being done to achieve that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has mentioned the recent proposals for grants for boat building. As I recall, in the preamble to the legislation on the common fisheries policy the European Community said that it would have particular regard to the more peripheral areas of the Community where the fishing industry was of considerable importance in providing employment. I make no bones about it: the proposals that have emanated from the EC are welcome in my constituency. At a time when my constituency is having to face up to some of the impact, particularly on employment, of the downturn of the oil industry, that boost is welcome.
I can understand the disappointment of my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who has an important fishing industry operating out of Eyemouth. Other hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull constituencies have fishing industries. We are conscious that the great fishing ports of Grimsby and Hull, which were great when I was doing geography at school, no longer have the fishing industry wealth that they once had. Those areas need support and no doubt will look to the Government to provide it.
While one would welcome any sign that those areas could continue to rely on a considerable measure of national support, we would not like to see national measures being used to neutralise what are clearly the objectives of the Community in supporting peripheral areas. I am sure that those two paths can quite consistently be followed.
The Minister has fishing interests in his constituency and will know that there can be considerable delay in the payment of EEC grants to fishermen. Often, the national grant is welcome because of the speed with which it is processed. However welcome the increased grant from the EEC, the fact that it sometimes takes a long time to come through means that those depending on it have to pay considerable interest charges. I am sure that the Minister must have been asked by fishermen in his constituency whether anything could be done to speed up the processing of these grants. If that could be done, their value would be even greater than the amount of the increase in the grants.
The motion talks about conservation and I should like to raise a small but important point which is of interest to those who fish in the North sea. I understand that all EEC vessels—of course, that includes all United Kingdom vessels—are obliged to have a calibration graph for the measurement of stocks. Norwegian boats are not required to have such calibrated tanks. Our vessels fishing Norwegian waters are obliged to abide by the Norwegian regulations. Can the Minister tell us whether any moves


are being considered in the EEC to oblige Norwegian vessels to comply with the stringent regulations laid on our vessels?
My final point is about the review of pelagic licensing. I think that in October 1985 I asked the Minister when we could expect a report or statement on the outcome of the review. He said that he hoped the report would be available by Cristmas. That was Christmas 1985 and we are within days of Christmas 1986 and still waiting for that report. It is important for those in the industry and for people engaged in the fishing boat building industry to have that report. They would like to see the position clarified because it is important for continuity of ordering. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when the outcome of the review is likely to be announced.
The common fisheries policy is one of the success stories of the EEC. We can all find things to criticise and point to areas which could be improved, but the policy has brought some stability, and that is welcome. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, the great fluctuations being foreshadowed for 1987 shake that stability to a considerable extent. I should be grateful if the Minister in his negotiations tomorrow can do anything to retrieve something of the position. If he can do that, he will have our support.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I welcome the comments that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made in responding to an intervention about the need to maintain a balance between the interests of fishermen using different sizes of vessels. I want to speak briefly in support of the concept of split quotas or a reserved part of quotas for inshore fishermen, especially those who use vessels that are shorter than 10 m.
Bodies such as Southern Commercial Fishermen, which represent family fishermen using small inshore vessels in the Solent and the south coast area, tell me how their members could have been faced with virtual disaster had the emergency restrictions on cod fishing not been able to be lifted because of arrangements with our friends in Ireland. At that stage virtually no cod had been taken by inshore fishermen in the area.
Inshore fishermen are perhaps the most concerned about the conservation of stocks. They are family fishermen and they wish to see stocks conserved from one generation to the next. They have been faced over the years with damage to their income in the Solent area from dredging, oil spillage and seismic surveys. They are now faced with the threat of reduced quotas. The time may arrive when the quotas are taken by larger vessels before the opportunity for catches ever arises for the inshore fishermen in the central southern part of England.
It is important that the Ministry takes on board the needs of the inshore fishermen in the area. When they invest in new vessels or equipment, it is often their virtual life savings that are involved. When they are faced with the threat of a reduction in the minimum size of bass to be caught and changes in mesh sizes, there is an enormous threat to their family incomes. Whatever the quotas may be — I am sure that inshore fishermen accept quota limits as much as anyone else—it is important that the inshore fishermen get a fair share. Whatever the size of the quota, there should be a reserved share available to them.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I shall be brief because I know that others want to make contributions.
I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). I, too, speak on behalf of inshore fishermen. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will know that I made representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food following meetings with local fishermen in my constituency on 21 November. Their concerns were precisely those that affect the Solent fishermen. I sought by way of an intervention in my right hon. Friend's speech to urge upon him the case for considering exemptions for those operating with boats of 10 m or less. I did so because under the present arrangements it is the fact that there are no controls over the smaller boats, but if we run into problems with our quota the operators of these boats will be faced at the year end with the destruction of their businesses and livelihoods.
Surely that cannot be justified, and that is why I was urging exemption across the board for the inshore fishermen. They cannot go out into the wider waters where there is a greater variety of catch to make up the cod which is crucial to them. That is my sole point, and it is one that I understand my right hon. Friend will consider further. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to say that he recognises my concern, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who raised the matter on an Adjournment debate, and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), along with many others who represent constituencies along the south coast. Some of them are in their places and hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: In Hastings and Rye we like catching fish, and we do not like cod bans that are imposed with 72 hours' notice. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I fully understand cannot be with us at this moment, and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to reply, that in the late 20th century we should be able to see the statistics of the cod catch developing and those of any other catch, note what is happening and not inflict upon men who have devoted their lives to fishing—I am delighted to say that in my constituency there is a growing and thriving industry—an abrupt and worrying ban on the fishing of cod. I have written to my right hon. Friend. After a month I eagerly await a reply. Can we hope that this type of ban will not abruptly be inflicted upon us again? It is not only unfair but it is unreasonable and totally unnecessary.
The beamers have departed. We welcome that departure, but we still have another problem, and that is the gravel deposits off the coast of Sussex. Those gravel deposits have been there since before the time of William the Conqueror and before my family landed at Hastings. I do not like the occasional forays into those gravel deposits. Whenever somebody applies to dig them out, officials from the Department of the Environment and other people come forward. They adjudicate and


pontificate — perhaps they pontificate and then adjudicate — and come up with the answer, "No, you cannot dig them out."
Will the Minister kindly instruct the foreigners—as we in Sussex call them, no matter where they come from—who want to dig out those gravel deposits, to stop? There is no scientific evidence against our belief that the area is the spawning ground for our plaice and cod, which provide Dover sole and Dover plaice—in other words, our fish and chips. Will the Ministry do something that will convince the Department of the Environment to stop these occasional forays into the gravel deposits?
I wish to make two points of praise that I think are not heard in the House as often as they should be. First, the Royal Navy does a wonderful job in fishery protection. We should wholeheartedly praise the Royal Navy and record the appreciation of all those around the coast of the British Isles for the job that it does. In the heyday of our attempts to negotiate sensible limits within the Common Market, we used to criticise the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy chaps do a super job in all weathers.
People such as coxswain Joe Martin and his crew in Hastings must also be praised. In all weathers they protect our fishermen all around the coast. They do wonderful work for the people who go to sea in their ships in all weathers. We should praise and acknowledge them at this time.

Mr. David Harris: Human nature being what it is, it is perhaps in the nature of this debate that we tend to concentrate on our fears and on what has gone wrong. Therefore, perhaps I should break a little with tradition and put on record that about 10 days ago, the record for landing the most valuable catch in Newlyn, the main port in my constituency was broken twice in the same day. Not all is gloom in the fishing industry—far from it.
I shall now refer to my concerns and my fears. First, the subject of sensitive areas has been referred to. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister tell us the basis for the designation of such sensitive areas? The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) correctly referred to the emphasis that is supposed to have been placed on peripherality. Cornwall has been excluded. Is that as a result of what is known as the Hague agreement? Incidentally, that agreement was entered into by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) when he was Foreign Secretary.
I shall approach the next topic with some sensitivity, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply on behalf of the Government. Last week I read a story in Fishing News under the headline
Pursers to head for south-west".
I do not wish to stir up controversy at this late hour of the night, particularly because of at least one person who is listening to the debate. Nevertheless, I delicately suggest that it might be just as well for the Government to ensure that factory ships are not stationed at Falmouth, because it is inside the mackerel box. I do not wish to suggest that our friends from northern waters would dare to fish in the mackerel box, it being a conservation area, but the temptation might be a little too strong if they have to steam through that box to take landings to factory ships. Policing will be difficult in those circumstances. Therefore,

I say, please, no factory ships at Falmouth, but if our friends from Scotland come down and fish outside the box, of course they can do so.
I hurriedly pass on to something that we can all make common cause on—the Spanish threat, which has been mentioned in the debate. It is real, and growing. In a parliamentary answer on 25 November, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave me what he reckoned were the latest figures on the number of Spanish boats. I regard them as Spanish boats—they are the boats that either have been transferred to our register, or, according to a new phrase that seems to have entered the language, they are ex-United Kingdom vessels on the register that
are beneficially owned by Spanish interests."—[Official Report, 25, November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 184.]
According to my right hon. Friend, the latest figure is that there are now 73 such boats, compared with 54 a year ago—an increase of 19. Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), my information is that the number is larger than that. Perhaps some of them are still being transferred. The number is increasing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that probably by the end of the year there will be about 100 of those vessels. It is a scandal that we have allowed this threat to grow. It must end. I shall go on fighting this issue until the Government bring it to an end.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): We have had, as is usual, an interesting debate on fisheries. It has ranged more widely than the documents before us. I assure my hon. Friends and Opposition Members that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will read carefully what they have said on those other matters. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I concentrate on the matters that my right hon. Friend and I have to discuss in Brussels tomorrow. I hope that the outcome of the Fisheries Council will be as successful from the British point of view as the outcome of the Agriculture Council over the past days has been for British farming.
I think that the right place to start is with the problem of the cod and haddock TACs. Undoubtedly, the industry is concerned about the reduction proposed by the scientists and the Commission in the TACs for those two most important white fish stocks in the North sea. It is well worth reminding the House that the scientists advised a figure of 120,000 tonnes. In the negotiations with Norway, we reached a figure of 140,000 tonnes, 20,000 tonnes above the figure recommended by the scientists.
I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), and I well understand his plea that we should try to find another 20,000 tonnes, but one has to be cautious about that. My hon. Friend quoted my speech in Aberdeen last Friday, but I noticed that he did not quote the end of it, which was also reported, when I said that Ministers had to be careful that we did not put quotas on fish that meant that the fishermen lived now and paid later. It is not just next year's fishing that has to be protected, but fishing and jobs in the years after that.
I say to hon. Members who mentioned the matter that my right hon. Friend and I are well aware of the problem, but we have to take not just next year but the longer term into view. We have agreed that a review will be carried out


as early as possible next year, but we have to wait for the final 1986 catch details, which will not be known for some time.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan that 140,000 tonnes is out of the ordinary. In fact, it is above the level of the landings in three years this decade—1980, 1981 and 1984. My hon. Friend may be right when he tells me that landing this year will be up to the quota level, but that just underlines the importance of waiting before we move any further from the scientists' advice until we have this year's final figure. There will be no one more pleased than me if, when that evidence comes before us, we can move this important quota up to 165,000 tonnes, or as near as we can get to it.
I think that everyone agrees that the stock of North Sea cod is under pressure. The fishermen have explained the argument about haddock to me, but there is little argument about cod. The 125,000 tonnes agreed with Norway was the maximum figure that the scientists were prepared to allow. Although we shall consider the details in the Fisheries Council, it would be unfair to everyone to suggest that, just because it would be nice to come back with more fish, we should do so. As I said, the dangers for the following years are considerable.
There was no reference to the following point, but I shall mention it now. We need only look back to see what happened to herring in the North sea. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that the market and the taste were lost. Although we now have a good amount of herring, we have lost much of the British market. That reminds us of the danger of overfishing and how quickly the stock can decrease if the pressure becomes too great. That goes to the point about why we cannot plan three or five years ahead.
I was asked why the saithe TAC has decreased. This reflects the scientific advice that fishing mortality is at its highest level since 1970 and has led to a low level of spawning stock. Obviously, that is serious.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) mentioned other possible means of conservation

and drew my attention in particular to the German bight closure. He asked why the idea had been rejected. It has not been rejected. We are supporting it, but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it would mean considerable difficulties for other member states. I cannot promise the House that we shall achieve that aim, but it has not been rejected at this stage. I am sure that everyone fully recognises the difficulties.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the proposals by the Commission of the European Communities set out in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's two unnumbered explanatory memoranda of 10th December 1986 on 1987 total allowable catches and quotas, and in the Ministry's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 9th December 1986 on the EC-Norway fisheries agreement; of European Community Document No. 10549/86 on 1987 fish guide prices; and of the Government's intention to seek improvements in the proposed arrangements for the benefit of the United Kingdom fishing industry consistent with the requirements of conservation of fish stocks.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

MERCHANT SHIPPING

That the draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Hyperbolic Systems) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

That the draft Asian Development Bank (Fourth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Common Land Register

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the specific case of one of my constituents and the general issue that flows from that case. This matter relates to Mr. Andrew Castellain, who lives in the old coastguard station at Zennor on the north coast in my constituency not far from Land's End. Mr. Castellain has owned his house for some years. To his utter amazement, not long ago he discovered that some years ago his house had been registered as common land. I found that incredible when he came to see me, and I suspect that any other hon. Member, including my hon. Friend the Minister, would think so, too.
What happened was that under the Commons Registration Act 1965, all that was initially required was that any person should register provisionally what he or she thought was common land. There was a lady in my constituency, who has since died, who was secretary of the West Cornwall footpath preservation society. She was a public-spirited lady, and she fulfilled that requirement under the Act and went round registering what she thought was common land. She did it in good faith, but perhaps her enthusiasm was not matched by her accuracy. Be that as it may, by one means or another Mr. Castellain's property was included in the map that she submitted to Cornwall county council, the registration authority under the 1965 Act.
Under that Act, which you will remember well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there was a period of time in which objectors to registration could press their objections. I believe that that period was about three and a half years, although a much longer period was recommended by the Royal Commission that drew up the report that formed the basis of the legislation.
The trouble was that people such as my constituent had no idea that their property had been provisionally registered, because all that was required was that an official notice should be put in the local newspapers or newspaper. In the case of my constituent, that notice did not specify his house by name. It referred to various plot numbers, and I suspect that it would have meant nothing to him if he had seen it. Consequently, it was only when he was considering installing electricity that, by accident, he came across the fact that several years earlier his house — not garden — had been registered under the Act. Moreover, it had not just been provisionally registered, because the period for objections had elapsed, and so the property was definitely registered.
My constituent was not too worried. He thought that it might be a simple matter for the mistake to be rectified. Oh no! He wrote to Cornwall county council, which replied that it was sorry and understood his predicament, but that it had no power under the 1965 Act to rectify the mistake. He then came to see me, and I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister and received a reply from Lord Skelmersdale, the Under-Secretary of State, who confirmed the position. He admitted ever so politely that the law was nonsense but said that there was no provision under it, except for a very narrow category, for rectifying mistakes over registration. Furthermore, he told me that

there were several people who were in the same predicament as my constituent. Perhaps that was an understatement, because since becoming involved in this case I have come across many similar cases, not necessarily involving houses but, rather, land.
For example, the National Farmers Union tells me that hundreds of people have had their land or property registered by mistake and can do nothing about it. Many hundreds of cases are known, but many more people must be in blissful ignorance of the fact that their property has been registered as common land under that Act. As the law stands, nothing can be done about that. The consequences of wrongful registration can be quite serious. In the case of my constituent, or anybody else who has had a house registered by mistake, I suspect that it would be difficult to find a buyer for the house. Although the law may not be clear on the consequences of registration, many potential purchasers would probably shy off, on learning from their searches that the property has been designated as common land. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that.
A few years ago various bodies got together to form the Common Land Forum in order to try to agree on a reform or review of the law on commons. Its report was published in September. It is quite a large document, of which only part deals with the problem of wrongful registration. The other parts of the document deal with more controversial aspects, such as access to common land.
The Common Land Forum was formed under the aegis of the Countryside Commission and includes various bodies, ranging from the Country Landowners Association on the one hand, to the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association on the other. The document amounted to a compromise on changes in the law. Almost without exception, the members of the CLF are anxious that their carefully compiled package should not be broken apart to deal with the problem of wrongful registration. They want legislation on the whole package, and I suspect that that might be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make his first statement on the report and on the Government's attitude to the report.
My view is clear. Many innocent people have suffered or could suffer as a result of a defect in the 1965 Act, which has resulted in inadequate notice being given to owners of land and property that their land and property was being registered, albeit provisionally. They have suffered because of the failure of this House and the other place to ensure that there was some mechanism in the 1965 Act to rectify obvious mistakes and nonsenses.
I want the Government to introduce legislation on this matter. I want the Secretary of State to have the power to rectify, in a simple manner, obvious nonsenses and mistakes, and cases such as that of my constituent Mr. Castellain, who suddenly discovered that his house is technically common land.
I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to give me, and more particularly my constituent, many other people who have already found themselves in similar circumstance, and many more who are blissfully ignorant of the situation concerning their property, some assurance that the Government will introduce legislation, or enable me or some other hon. Member to bring in a simple Bill to rectify this defect in law.

Mr. Tony Favell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the consent of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the Minister?

Mr. Favell: I do.

Mr. Favell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) for giving me the opportunity to make this short intervention.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the plight of Mr. Castellain. I am a practising solicitor, and my firm is representing a person with a problem similar to that of Mr. Castellain. He has a house and garden that has been registered as common land, although it was never the intention of the Commons Registration Act to register houses as common land. This house is well over a century old, and has always been occupied by families, and the public have never had access to it, except with the consent of the owners. It is on a large moor in Northumberland, large sections of which are registered as common land. For some reason, the house and its small garden were included in a registration of many acres of land.
My client is unable to have the register rectified because the land was originally registered by mistake. If it had been registered as a fraud, action would be open to him, but there is no reason to suggest that the original application was made for fraudulent reasons. It was done purely by mistake. It is indeed difficult for the owner of a property in these circumstances to sell it, for the simple reason that no building society, knowing the facts, will lend on it. That is an injustice and only this House can rectify it.

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I find myself in considerable sympathy with my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Stockport (Mr. Favell). I do not think that the procedures on the Commons Registration Act 1965 were very well advised in that, to take the example of St. Ives, the publication of notices in a sub-regional newspaper is unlikely to be drawn immediately to the notice of people in remoter areas who are perhaps most affected.
I can confirm the account that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives gave of how the Commons Registration Act 1965 works. As he said, anyone could apply for land to be registered under it. A number of worthy and, as he described the lady in his constituency, public-spirited people went about with greater enthusiasm than accuracy when using ordnance survey maps, and there have been some strange results.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport has professional experience of these matters. There are several examples scattered all over the country. They would be almost comic if they were not so irritating. I hope and believe that the Castellains, who have pursued their case vigorously—I have even read about it in the national newspapers — may have overcome the immediate difficulty with the electricity supply. With a little entirely legal connivance, they can probably overcome their problem. The electricity distribution authority operates under legislation which may help them.
Circumstances such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport described remain a real problem. A building society or bank, faced with such uncertainty, may raise

questions. Being good entrepreneurial characters, they may put another point or two on the interest rate or put other obstacles in the way.
There is no doubt in the Government's mind that this is an absurdity which must be put right. The only question—it is quite a question—is in what time scale it can be put right. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said—I have little to add to his speech—the Common Land Forum has been at work on a package of measures. Under its able chairman, it has brought together pretty good agreements involving a wide group of potentially disparate interests. It is loth to see bits of its package taken out separately, as it fears that its structure of compromise and agreement might fall to pieces. I understand that.
I am willing to respond to my hon. Friend's friendly challenge to give the first preliminary views on the Common Land Forum report. We hope to put out a discussion paper very shortly. My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale said "by Christmas", but Christmas always seems to come earlier than one expects. It might not quite be before Christmas, but, shortly afterwards, we will go out to consultation. I have no hesitation in saying that we greatly welcome the work that has been done by the Common Land Forum. Although we are tidying up some details of our response to some of its recommendations, we think that it sets out the way forward in a reasonable way.
The question is: can we get legislation from our colleagues in the great pile of legislative measures that hang over any Government? My Department alone is anxious to denationalise the water supply and to introduce rate reform and all manner of measures. This matter is not particularly contentious, but it is a case of getting this matter agreed early.
We shall seek to introduce a package of measures on this issue as quickly as possible. If there should be any untoward delay, I would understand it if my hon. Friend proposed measures to deal with this issue. He provides an incentive to us to introduce a major package. We cannot leave constituents and clients in this ridiculous, indefensible position indefinitely.
I ask the indulgence of my hon. Friends tonight in that I cannot now state when the Government will introduce legislation. What they have said are powerful additional arguments for endorsing this useful collection of agreements that the Common Land Forum has produced. Their arguments provide piquancy and urgency and will be taken fully into account when we consider these matters.
These matters may be small, but they concern injustice to individual citizens and the House is largely constituted to rectify that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend's for raising the subject, but this evening I cannot state the date for legislation. All I can say is that they have added urgency to our search for solutions.

Mr. Harris: I understand the difficulty facing the Government. Nevertheless, injustice affecting the rights of individuals is involved. Would my right hon. Friend consider co-operating to enable me or some hon. Friend to introduce a ten-minute Bill? Is that a possibility?

Mr. Waldegrave: It depends on whether we can introduce the package early. I understand why my hon. Friend should want to do that and I would want to do so in the same position. If he introduced a ten-minute Bill,


hon. Members from both sides would add matters and the package of compromises would begin to fall to pieces. Therefore, although it is his right to do so and if he introduces such a measure we must consider it on its merits, I ask him at least to await our consultation paper.

However, he should not diminish his efforts to press us to solve these matters soon, because it is in all our interests so to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Midnight.